UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Edwin KOHN, Jr., a/k/a David Johnson, a/k/a Officer David Washington, Defendant-Appellant, 390 F. App'x 285

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Edwin Kohn, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). Because Kohn was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the presentence report (“PSR”) calculated his sentence in accordance with U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.4(b) (2006), which provides that the Guidelines sentence is the minimum term of imprisonment required by statute — in Kohn’s case, ten years to life imprisonment on the first count of conviction and twenty-five years to life imprisonment on the second. The Government moved for a downward departure, USSG § 5K1.1, p.s., based on Kohn’s substantial assistance. The court granted the Government’s motion and sentenced Kohn to 274 months’ imprisonment. Kohn appeals his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Kohn argues that the district court should have considered the § 3553(

a) sentencing factors, and not merely the value of his assistance, in determining the extent of the departure below the statutory minimum sentence. Kohn acknowledges that this court has previously rejected a similar challenge, see United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir.2009), thus establishing circuit authority binding on subsequent panels. United States v.

Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir.2005) (“A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny the Government’s motion for

summary affirmance as moot. 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