United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
REVISED June 23, 2011
June 20, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-11253
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN WANNAMAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-184-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Wannamaker appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and
securities fraud, five counts of wire fraud, one count of
securities fraud, five counts of money laundering, and four
counts of engaging in illegal monetary transactions. He argues
that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable.
The district court stated that it had considered the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and gave, inter alia, the following
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
reasons for the sentence: (1) the sentence was within the
applicable guidelines sentencing range for the offenses
(§ 3553(a)(4)) and (2) Wannamaker pleaded guilty to all 16 counts
of the indictment without a plea agreement and (3) he accepted
responsibility for the offenses. The district court also heard
and considered the testimony of Wannamaker’s wife and one of the
victims of Wannamaker’s offenses. Wannamaker has not shown that
the district court misapplied the Guidelines, failed to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, failed to give reasons for the sentence,
or considered improper factors in imposing the sentence.
Therefore, Wannamaker has not shown that the sentence imposed by
the district court was unreasonable. See United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 518-20 (5th Cir. 2005).
Wannamaker also argues that the language in United States v.
Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2005), is improper. We have not,
however, relied on Alonzo and its rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness in deciding this appeal.
AFFIRMED.