United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-20262 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TUY VAN NGUYEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:04-CR-181-3
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tuy Nguyen appeals the sentences imposed following the entry
of his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib-
ute methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”) (count one), aiding and
abetting possession with intent to distribute MDMA (count four),
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime (count five). Nguyen was sentenced to concurrent 57-month
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 05-20262
-2-
terms of imprisonment as to counts one and four and to a consecu-
tive 60-month term for count five. He was also sentenced to con-
current five-year periods of supervised release for each count. He
contends that the sentences are unreasonable because the district
court declined to depart downward based on cultural assimilation.
Nguyen does not challenge the calculation of the advisory
guideline range. The district court considered the sentencing
guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and determined that sentences at the low end
of the guidelines range were appropriate. Nguyen’s sentences with-
in the properly calculated guidelines range are presumptively rea-
sonable, and he has failed to demonstrate that his sentences are
unreasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55
(5th Cir. 2006). Nothing in the record indicates that the district
court based its decision not to depart downwardly on an erroneous
belief that it lacked authority to depart. See United States v.
Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.