US v. Canady, No. 05-5141 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 14, 2008.
Download PDF
Vacated by Supreme Court, January 7, 2008 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-5141 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERSHOM CANADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-05-48) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender; Gretchen L. Taylor, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gershom Canady appeals the 136-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to eight drug offenses. He contends on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm. Canady contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court allegedly failed to consider one of the factors identified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) in imposing sentence. Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, Booker makes clear that a sentencing court must consult [the] Guidelines sentencing a defendant. the Court). and take them into account 125 S. Ct. at 767 (Breyer, J., opinion of The court should consider the sentencing range along with the § 3553(a) factors, and then impose a sentence. States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). must be within reasonable. the statutorily prescribed range See United The sentence and . . . Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted). In sentencing Canady, properly when calculated advisory the district court considered the guideline range addressed several of the § 3553(a) factors. the court did not discuss each factor. and specifically It is immaterial that See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the court sentenced Canady within the advisory guideline range and below the forty-year - 2 - statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000), we conclude that Canady s sentence is reasonable. sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the 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.
