United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30655
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK MARTRELL JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:04-CR-119-2
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Martrell Jackson pleaded guilty without a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine base and two counts of distribution of cocaine
base and was sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment on all three
counts to run concurrently and five years and four years of
supervised release to run concurrently. Jackson appeals, arguing
that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), grossly overstates
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-30655
-2-
the severity of his conduct to the exclusion of the other
sentencing factors to be considered in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) and is unreasonable.
After Booker, appellate courts ordinarily will review
sentences for reasonableness. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-63; United
States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 43 (2005). Under the discretionary sentencing system
established by Booker, district courts retain the duty to
consider the Guidelines along with the sentencing factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 518-19. This requires the
court to calculate the applicable guidelines range, and “[i]f the
sentencing judge exercises her discretion to impose a sentence
within a properly calculated Guideline range, in our
reasonableness review we will infer that the judge has considered
all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.”
Id. at 519. In such cases, “it will be rare for a reviewing
court to say such a sentence is ‘unreasonable.’” Id. Thus,
Mares indicates that, in the wake of Booker, district courts are
to continue to calculate a guidelines range, albeit an advisory
one. “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range
is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo,
435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).
The sentencing judge recounted Jackson’s pattern of crime,
jail, parole, and further crime, considered the provisions of 18
U.S.C. § 3553, considered Jackson’s drinking and drug use,
No. 05-30655
-3-
considered the need to protect the public and send a message to
others who might want to deal drugs, and concluded that a
sentence at the upper end of the guidelines was needed to prevent
Jackson from committing further crimes and to protect the public.
Jackson makes no argument that the guidelines sentencing range
was not properly calculated. The district court judge properly
took into consideration the appropriate factors, and thus Jackson
has failed to demonstrate that his guideline sentence was
unreasonable. Alonzo,435 F.3d at 553-55.
AFFIRMED.