Case ID: f-appx_188/html/0245-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett Rolland POORE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-51250
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 6, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Brett Rolland Poore pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Finding that Poore was a career criminal, the district court sentenced him on each count to 262 months in prison and five years of supervised release, the terms to run concurrently-

Poore appeals, arguing that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Here, the district court fulfilled its duty to consider all of the § 3553 factors and sentenced Poore to 262 months of imprisonment, which was the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). This sentence is within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006). There is no indication that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. The district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.