Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Rashon EDWARDS, a/k/a Jamari Blane, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-05
Citations: 124 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 04-4600
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Rashon EDWARDS, a/k/a Jamari Blane, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 818–818

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Rashon EDWARDS, a/k/a Jamari Blane, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 04-4600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2005.
Decided: April 5, 2005.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witeover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rashon Edwards appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months in prison. On appeal, Edwards asserts that the district court erred when it sentenced him to a term of imprisonment above the term of eight to fourteen months recommended by the sentencing guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2004). We affirm.
Counsel concedes that the sentencing ranges set forth in Chapter Seven of the guidelines are advisory and non-binding. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir.1995). Edwards does not suggest that the sentence was not statutorily authorized. Further, it is clear from the record that the recommended guideline range "was within the district court's contemplation." See id. at 642. Finally, the district court explained its reasons for imposing the longer sentence. We conclude that the district court exercised its informed discretion by imposing a sentence of twenty-four months.
We accordingly affirm. 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