### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50998 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. G. B. BUTCH COLEMAN, JR., Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-690-6

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * G.B. Butch Coleman, Jr., has appea l e d h i s sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Coleman was convicted by a jury and sentenced to a 168-month term of imprisonment, with credit for time served in custody, and a five-year term of supervised release. He argues that his sentence, which is at the mid-range of the applicable guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. He does not suggest that the district court committed a procedural error in calculating the applicable guidelines range, but U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 24, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2012No. 11-50998

he contends that his sentence is unreasonable under Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), because the drug-trafficking guidelines lack

an empirical basis and the assignment of offense levels based on drug quantities

causes drug couriers such as himself to receive unreasonably high sentences. He urges that a below-guidelines sentence woul d b e ap p ro p ri at e b e c au s e h e p re s e nt s lit t l e ri s k of recidivism and he has a stable work record, no prior criminal convictions, and a history of religious and charitable activities. Generally, we review criminal sentences for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If, however, a defendant failed to object to an error at sentencing , w e w ill review the issue for plain error only. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). A sentence that falls within a defendant’s properly calculated guidelines range i s entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United Sta t e s v . Alonzo , 435 F

. 3 d 5 51, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Coleman raised his appellate arguments for a below-guidelines sentence during the sentencing hearing, but he did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence. We need no t r e s olve whether plain error review applies because Coleman’s sentence may be affirmed under either standard. Compare United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to the reasonableness of his sentence limits this court’s review to plain error), with Unite d S t a t e s v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for abuse-ofdiscretion a district court’s denial of a below-guidelines sentence in a case where the defendant presented detaile d a ssertions and testimony in support of the variance but did not specifically object to the reasonableness of his sentence). Kimbrough does not require either district courts or appell a t e c ourts to conduct “a piece-by-piece analysis of the empirical grounding behind each part of the sentencing guidelines.” United States v . Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). A presumption o f r e asonableness applies to a within-guidelines

2 Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2012No. 11-50998

sentence regardless of whether it is supported by empirical data. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2 009). The district co u rt considered Coleman’s sentencing arguments andevidence and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before determining that a withinGuideline sentence was appropriate. Coleman has not shown that the district court considered any irrelevant or improper factors, th a t i t made an error in judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, or that it did not account for a factor that should receive significant weight. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 ( 5th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the advisory guidelines range. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 50-51. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2012