UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Leonard SCALES, Defendant-Appellant, 141 F. App'x 167

PER CURIAM: Ronald Leonard Scales appeals his seventy-two month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, Scales asserts that the district court’s disregard of the federal sentencing guidelines runs afoul of our decision in United States v.

Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order) (recommending sentencing courts announce an alternative sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a), which treats the federal sentencing guidelines as advisory only), opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), vacated, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). However, after both parties filed briefs, Hammoud was overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.

Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which held that the mandatory manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court’s failure to comply with a case that has now been overruled does not constitute error on appeal, plain or otherwise.

Moreover, we note that as required under Booker, the district court treated the guidelines as advisory, and accounted for arguments that would not have been allowed under a mandatory guidelines scheme. Accordingly, we find that because the district court imposed a sentence within the now-advisory guidelines range and below the ten-year statutory maximum for the offense, the sentence was reasonable. Cf. United States v.

Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-65, 767) (noting after Booker, sentencing courts should determine the sentencing range under the guidelines, consider the other factors under § 3553(a), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum). We therefore affirm Scales’ conviction and 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