Opinion ID: 793667
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reep's Sentence

Text: 81 Reep, like Smith, was sentenced as a career offender. He argues that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme. This was, as we have previously held, plain error. U.S. v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 216-17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 668, 163 L.Ed.2d 539 (2005). However, Reep must also demonstrate prejudice by showing that the treatment of the guidelines as mandatory caused the district court to impose a longer sentence than it otherwise would have. Id. at 224. Reep cannot do so. At sentencing, the district court commented that the sentence of 360 months is appropriate[ ] [g]iven your background and the nature of the offense. J.A. 2514. This statement certainly does not support a claim that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence in the exercise of its discretion. We therefore affirm Reep's sentence.