Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry William STEWART, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-26
Citations: 221 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 05-4946
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry William STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry William STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-4946.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2007.
Decided: March 26, 2007.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A jury found Appellant Terry William Stewart guilty of several offenses arising out of a Ponzi scheme. We previously affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing pursuant to the rules announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). United States v. Stewart, 129 Fed.Appx. 758 (4th Cir.2005) (unpublished), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 228, 163 L.Ed.2d 214 (2005) (No. 05-5332). At resentencing, the district court used the calculations under the sentencing guidelines it used at the initial sentencing. When it imposed the new sentence, the court was aware of the advisory nature of the guidelines and it considered the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006) factors. Stewart claims the sentence was not reasonable because the court erred in determining the amount of loss for sentencing purposes. We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261, 125 S.Ct. 738. We find the error with respect to the calculation of the amount of loss under the guidelines was harmless. See United States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273, 286 (4th Cir.2003).
Accordingly, we affirm the 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.