United States of America v. Diijon Timmons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5148
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DIIJON TIMMONS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CR-04-92)
Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John
L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Diijon Timmons pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in
excess of 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000),
and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Timmons was
sentenced to 235 months in prison for the drug offense and a
consecutive 120-month term for the firearm offense, for an
aggregate sentence of 355 months in prison. Timmons now appeals,
challenging his sentence as unreasonable. We affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the sentencing range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, which are now advisory.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).
However, in determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts
are required to consider the correctly calculated guideline range
and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2005). Id. We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it
falls within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.
Id. at 546-47. A sentence that falls within the correctly
determined guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
__ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474).
Here, the district court sentenced Timmons within the
statutorily prescribed ranges, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000);

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and within the properly calculated
guideline range. The court also took note of Timmons’ Position
Statement Regarding Sentencing, in which Timmons’ attorney argued
that a 240-month aggregate sentence would be appropriate in light
of the sentencing factors set forth at § 3553(a). We therefore
conclude that the sentence imposed is reasonable.
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --