United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-21042
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-45
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Gonzalez appeals his aggregate sentence of 135 months
of imprisonment following his guilty-plea convictions for six
counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1), and two counts of
possession of child pornography involving the sexual exploitation
of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and
(b)(2), 2256(8)(A)-(C). On appeal, Gonzalez argues that his
sentence is unreasonable because the district court relied only
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-21042
-2-
on the sentencing range calculated under the Sentencing
Guidelines and failed to consider the other sentencing factors of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Government argues that Gonzalez’s appeal is a challenge
to the district court’s refusal to impose a requested “non-
Guidelines sentence”; the Government asserts that the district
court’s refusal constitutes the denial of a motion for downward
departure and, as such, it is unreviewable. Gonzalez, however,
makes it clear that he is challenging the reasonableness of the
guidelines sentence that the district court ultimately imposed.
We review sentences imposed for “unreasonableness.” United
States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). A sentence within a properly calculated
guidelines range is presumed reasonable. United States v.
Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Gonzalez does not
challenge the calculation of the guidelines range; he argues that
his sentence is not reasonable because the district court failed
to consider all of the factors of § 3553(a). Our review of the
record persuades us that these factors were raised and properly
considered by the district court at sentencing. Gonzalez has not
rebutted the presumption that the guidelines sentence was
reasonable.
AFFIRMED.