United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 16, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30384
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES LEE GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:02-CR-60053-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Lee Green appeals his 300-month sentence following
his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of cocaine base.
Green avers that (1) the district court erred in declining to
depart downward; (2) the district court’s statements at
sentencing showed that it treated the Guidelines as mandatory,
rather than advisory, in violation of United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005); (3) the district court erroneously applied
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30384
-2-
the “presumptively reasonable” appellate standard of review in
arriving at his sentence; and (4) his sentence was unreasonable.
This court does not have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s denial of Green’s motion for a downward departure. See
United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2006).
However, we do have jurisdiction to review “whether the district
court’s imposition of a guideline sentence instead of a non-
guideline sentence was reasonable.” See United States v.
Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2007).
Contrary to Green’s assertion, the record reflects that the
district court was aware that the Guidelines were advisory in
nature. Accordingly, there was no Fanfan violation. See United
States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005) (explaining
that Fanfan error “is found where the district court applied the
mandatory Guidelines to enhance a defendant’s sentence absent any
Sixth Amendment Booker error”).
The record further reflects that the district court properly
calculated the applicable guideline sentencing range and
considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-20
(5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Green has not shown that the
sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.