US v. Bowman, No. 05-4960 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4960 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONNIE WAYNE BOWMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-04-38) Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: April 28, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellant Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donnie Wayne Bowman appeals the sixty-three-month sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2000). Bowman challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, contending that it is longer than necessary to comply with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We find, however, that the district court sentenced Bowman only after appropriately considering and examining the sentencing guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The court sentenced Bowman within the applicable advisory guideline range and well below § the ten-year 924(a)(2) statutory (2000). We maximum cannot set forth conclude that, in 18 U.S.C. under circumstances, Bowman s sentence is unreasonable. these See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that sentence imposed within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); see also United States v. Johnson, F.3d 2006) 05-4378) (No. , , 2006 WL 893594, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, (finding that district court s detailed inquiry into the various circumstances bearing upon [defendant s] sentence satisfied court s obligation factors). - 2 - to consider § 3553(a) Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with 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.
