Case ID: f-appx_220/html/0345-01.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. William Todd CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30700
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 5, 2007.
    Sonia Peters Cassidy, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elton B. Richey, Jr., Law Office of Elton B. Richey Jr., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William Todd Clark appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Clark argues that his sentence of 71 months of imprisonment, which was at the top of the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.

Clark’s sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. See United, States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Little explanation of a sentence is required when a district court expressly imposes a sentence within the advisory guideline range. 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). Clark has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated Guidelines sentence was unreasonable, and he is therefore not entitled to relief. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.