IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 20, 2008
No. 08-30138
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HARRIS ROBERTSON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:07-CR-108-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harris Robertson was arrested after he agreed to smuggle various
contraband items, including a quantity of cocaine base, into the Tangipahoa
Parish Jail. Robertson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of cocaine base, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He was sentenced
to 51 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable guidelines
range.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-30138
The abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of
sentencing decisions. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). A
sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); see also
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594.
On appeal, Robertson argues that his sentence was unreasonable because
the district court failed to take into account the Government’s role in selecting
cocaine base as the drug to be smuggled, which he argues constituted sentencing
entrapment. We have not yet determined whether sentencing entrapment, or
the related concept of sentencing factor manipulation, is a cognizable defense to
a sentence. However, even if we were to do so, Robertson has not shown that he
was persuaded to commit a criminal offense greater than he was predisposed to
commit, or that the Government’s conduct was outrageous. See United States
v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1280 (5th Cir. 1995).
Robertson does not contend that his sentence is otherwise procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596-97. He likewise has not
rebutted the presumption that his sentence, which falls within a properly
calculated sentencing guidelines range, is reasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at
554.
AFFIRMED.
2