Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther VEREEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-26
Citations: 146 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 05-4535
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luther VEREEN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luther VEREEN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided Oct. 26, 2005.
James P. Rogers, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; A. Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luther Vereen, Jr., appeals from his 262-month sentence entered following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine. Vereen contends that the sentencing enhancement he received for being a career offender is precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Applying Booker, we find no sentencing error. To the extent that Vereen argues that his sentence was unreasonable, the Guidelines were correctly calculated, and Vereen was sentenced at the lowest end of the Guideline range. Therefore, we do not find his sentence to be unreasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that sentences post -Booker would be reviewed for reasonableness).
Accordingly, we affirm Vereen's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED