United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30246
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY R. GENTRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:03-CR-50033-5
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony R. Gentry appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court on remand. Gentry was sentenced to a 240-month
term of imprisonment for bank robbery and to a mandatory
consecutive 120-month term for using firearms during a crime of
violence. Gentry’s sentence was vacated on appeal and the matter
was remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Gentry, 118
F. App’x 820, 821 (5th Cir. 2004). On resentencing, which
occurred following the intervening decision in United States v.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30246
-2-
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court again imposed a
240-month sentence of imprisonment on the bank robbery count,
which was above the applicable guideline range.
Gentry argues that the district court should have more fully
considered his history and characteristics in determining his
sentence. Gentry emphasizes that he is only 25 years of age,
that he had no felony convictions prior to the instant offense,
and that he was gainfully employed and supporting his wife and
two children. He contends that he was not one of the “main
players” the robbery, and he asserts that he did not discharge a
firearm during the offense. Gentry submits that his sentence
should be within the guideline range of 151-88 months.
“Both a district court’s post-Booker sentencing discretion
and the reasonableness inquiry on appeal must be guided by the
sentencing considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006).
However, the district court “need not engage in robotic
incantations that each statutory factor has been considered.”
Id. at 707 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
At resentencing, the district court stated that it had
considered the Sentencing Guidelines and everything in the
probation officer’s report, which detailed Gentry’s history and
characteristics. The district court also indicated that it had
considered the seriousness of Gentry’s conduct, which contributed
No. 05-30246
-3-
to the injury to a police officer, the harm to the community, and
the sentences imposed on Gentry’s co-defendants.
The record does not support Gentry’s contention that the
district court failed to give adequate consideration to his role
in the offense, his history, and his characteristics. The
district court carefully considered the sentencing factors and
articulated “permissible reasons for its variance” from the
guideline range. Id. at 410. Accordingly, Gentry’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.