Opinion ID: 1023116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Morton’s Sentence

Text: Morton next asserts that his criminal history category overstates his criminal history. Because Morton did not raise this issue below, we review only for plain error. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 547. While Morton ascribes error to his criminal history category, he also concedes that the probation officer properly calculated Morton’s criminal history. We have reviewed the calculation of Morton’s criminal history and find no plain error. Morton’s criminal record establishes Morton’s continued refusal to - 13 - abide by the law, and that is accurately reflected in his criminal history category. Morton next asserts a cursory challenge to this court’s approach to resolving appeals from post-Booker4 sentences. Particularly, Morton maintains that this court should not afford sentences within the properly calculated Guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness. We reject this argument as foreclosed by circuit precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).