Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Leigh CARR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-23
Citations: 156 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 05-4283
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Leigh CARR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Leigh CARR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4283.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2005.
Decided Nov. 23, 2005.
William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Leigh Carr appeals his forty-six month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). We affirm.
Carr contends that the sentence imposed by the district court was not reasonable. After United States v. Booker, - U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), courts must calculate the appropriate guideline range, consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and impose a sentence. If a court imposes a sentence outside the guideline range, the district court must state its reasons for doing so. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir.2005). This court should review a sentence imposed pursuant to § 3553 to determine whether it is reasonable. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-67.
The district court imposed a sentence within the advisory guidelines range and below the statutory maximum for the offense and considered the relevant factors under § 3553(a). We have been given no reason why the sentence imposed was not reasonable. Cf. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-65, 767) (noting after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). Accordingly, we affirm Carr'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
The statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) is ten years. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000).