1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-4017

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Aaron Reed Hinton, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 17, 2007 Filed: June 7, 2007

___________ Before BYE, BEAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

________________ PER CURIAM. Aaron Reed Hinton appeals the senten ce imposed by the district court. 1 Hinton argues the district court erred in appl ying an enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 2G2.2(b)(5) (2001) and presuming a Guidelines sentence to be reasonable. We affirm. Hinton responded by e-mail to an advertisement placed by U.S. Postal Service investigators in Internet newsgroups known to be frequented by individuals interested-2- in child pornography. Hinton’s emails indicat ed a desire to order and receive videos depicting child pornography; the agent emaile d Hinton a list of available videos with information about each video and pricing info rmation. The agent then received a letter from Hinton ordering six videos and incl uding payment. Foll owing a controlled delivery, Hinton was indictedand later pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography through the mails pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). In its presentence report, the U.S. Pr obation Office calculated a base offense level, and recommended a two-level enhancement because the offense involved minors under the age of twelve. It also recommended a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The report, as did the plea agreement, recognized that the parties reserved the right to argue at the time of sentencing whether the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) (2001) for use of a computer applied. At sentencing, the district court, relying on United States v. Stulock , 308 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2002), found the “plain langua ge” of the two-level use-of-a-computer enhancement required the enhancement’s application. The district court sentenced Hinton to thirty months, the low end of the guidelines range. Hinton appeals this ruling. Hinton argues the application of the use-of-a-computer enhancement is error because he received the materials through the mail, not via his computer, and the enhancement covers the “transmission” of prohibited material by computer, not its receipt. But the Stulock court held § 2G2.2(b)(5) app lies to a defendant who receives child pornography that he received a notice or advertisement of through use of a computer. 308 F.3d at 925. Because Stulock involves facts legally indistinguishable from those in this case and is directly on point, we are required to affirm the application of the contested sentencing enhancement.-3- Separately, Hinton argues the district court erred by applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the pr operly calculated adviso ry guidelines range. He argues the guidelines are but one of a number of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and a presumption of reasonableness for a sent ence within the guide lines sentence creates a disproportionate emphasis on one of the § 3553(a) factors. Hinton recognizes that the law in this circuit is th at a sentence within the guide lines range is presumptively reasonable, United States v. Garnica , 477 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), but he notes the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on this question in United States v. Rita , 177 F. App’x. 357 (4th Cir.) (unpublished per curiam), cert. granted , ___ U.S. ____, 127 S.Ct. 551 (2006). Hinton’s argument is unavailing because a panel of this court is bound by the prior panels’ decisions unless (and until) th e court en banc, or the Supreme Court, reaches a different result. SeePatterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc. , 113 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error in the trial court’s disposition of this matter. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________