United States of America v. Cynthia Beasley O’briant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CYNTHIA BEASLEY O’BRIANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-52)
Submitted: February 6, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*The statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000) is thirty
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Beasley O’Briant appeals her twenty-seven month
sentence imposed following a guilty plea to embezzlement, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2000). We affirm.
O’Briant contends her sentence was not reasonable. After
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), courts must
calculate the appropriate guideline range, consider the range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and impose a sentence. If a court imposes
a sentence outside the guideline range, the court must state its
reasons for doing so. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547
(4th Cir. 2005). We review such a sentence for reasonableness.
See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-67.
Here, the district court’s sentencing was appropriate
under Hughes. Because O’Briant’s sentence was at the low end of
the advisory guidelines range and below the statutory maximum * for
the offense, we conclude her sentence was reasonable. Accordingly,
we affirm O’Briant’s sentence. 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

-- 2 of 2 --