US v. Cunningham, No. 05-4650 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4650 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-04-200-NCT) Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Dewayne Cunningham appeals the 185-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). He contends that, in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), his sentence is unreasonable. Cunningham unreasonable We affirm. asserts because he on appeal presented that mitigating his sentence factors sentencing hearing to support a lower sentence. at is the Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing. 125 S. Ct. 767 (Breyer, J., opinion of the Court). The court should consider this sentencing range other along with the factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and then impose a sentence. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005) (applying Booker on plain error review). The sentence must be within the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable. Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted). In sentencing Cunningham, the district court considered the properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guideline range and the factors in § 3553(a). Because the court sentenced Cunningham within the advisory Guideline range and within the twenty-year statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), we conclude that the - 2 - sentence sentence. is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Cunningham s 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 - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
