Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10800 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. RO YC E D EA N PO W ER S , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C R
- 38- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R o y c e D e a n P o w e r s p le a d e dg u iltyt o o n e co u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f c h ild porn ograp h y i n vi ol ati on of 18 U . S . C . § 225 2( a) ( 4) ( B ) . T h e di st ri ctcourti m posed a 97-m ont h t e r m o f

i m pr i s o nm e ntt o b e f o l l o w e d b y a l i fe t e r m o f s upe rvi s ed rel ease. Pow ers ap pea l s hi s s en t en ce. S e n te n c e s a r e r e v ie w e dfo rr e a s o n a b le n e s s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F . 3d511 , 520 ( 5th C i r. 2 005 ) . P u rsuan tt o G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S. 38, 51 (2 0 0 7 ), th is co u r t m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis p r o c e d u r a lly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 20, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10800 Document: 00511117479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 10800

2 s o u n d , in c lu d in gw h e t h e rth e ca lc u la tio n o f th e a d v is o r yg u id e lin e s ra n g e is corr ect , an d w h et h er th e sentence i s s u bstantivel y reasona bl e. R evi ew i s f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Id . A di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd a ppli c at i o n o f t he g u id e lin e s is re v ie w e dd e n o v o . Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Vi l lega s , 404 F. 3d 355, 359 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). P ow ers f

i rstcontends that th e di st ri ctcou rtcom m i t t ed p rocedural error b ya p p ly in go ffe n s e le v e l e n h a n c e m e n ts fo rb o th d is tr ib u tio n o f c h ild porn ograp h y u n der U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2(b) ( 3) ( F ) an d u se of a com pu t er un der § 2 G 2. 2(b) ( 6) . Al t ho ught he o f fe ns e o f c o nvic t i o n i s po s s e s s i o n, Po w e r s us e d a pe e r - t o- peer program on h i s c om pu t er t o obtai n i m ages of chi l d p o r no gr ap hy and , al s o , t o m ak e t he i m ag e s av ail ab l e t o o t he r s . U nde r t he G ui de l i ne s , m ak i ng t he i m ages avail abl e t o ot her s c ons t i t ut es di st r ibut i on and m ay be ac c ount ed f oras r e le v a n t c o n d u c t . S ee§ 2 G 2 .2 , co m m e n t. (n .1 ); U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 (a ); cf . Un i t ed S t ate s v. F

ow ler , 21 6 F . 3 d45 9 , 46 1 -62 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 0 ). M u l ti p l e en h a n cem en ts are perm i ssibl e except w h en sp ecif i cal l y proh ibi t ed byt h e app l i cabl e G u i del i n e. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 145 F. 3d 736, 737 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ; U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 1, c o m m e nt . (n. 4(A) ) . Se c t i o n 2 G 2. 2 c o nt ai ns no s uc h pr o hibit i o n. P ow ers a l so ch a l l en ge s th e su b stan tive rea son a b l en ess of h i s sen ten ce. If t h e di st ri ctcourti m poses a sentence w i t h i n a properl y cal cul ated gu i del i n es ran ge, as herei n , w e m ay ap pl y a presum pti on of reasona bl en ess t o t h e sentence o n a ppe l l at e re vi e w , i nfe r r i ng t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tco ns i de r e d al lt he r e l e va nt s e n te n c i n gfa c t o r s . R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 (2 0 0 7 ); seealso Uni t e d St at e sv . Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ). Ats e n t e n c i n g , t h e di s t r i c tc o u r tha db e f o r e itt h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t(PS R) andPSR A dde ndum , P o w e r s ’ s obj e c t i o ns , and t he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s re s po ns e s . The d is t r ic tc o u r ta d o p t e dth e c a lc u la t io n s a n dfi n d in g s o f t h e P S R ; h e a r dP o w e r s ’s exp ress i on of

rem orse; an d consi dered cou n sel ’ s argu m en t s f or a l ow er s en t en ce bas ed o n Pow er s’ s m ent alh ealt h i ss ues , h i st or y of subst anceabu se , an d m edi c al Case: 09-10800 Document: 00511117479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 10800

3 probl em s. A s evidencedb y f i n di n gs in the P S R , the court w as furt h er aw are of P ow ers’ s l a ckof crim i n a lh i storyan dli feti m e of resp on sibl e con d u ct. T h e cou rt, ho w e ve r , d i d n ota gr e e t hatt he s e fac t o r s m e r i t e d as e nt e nc e b e l o w t he a p p li c a b le g u id e li n e s r a n g e . P o w e r s h a s fa il e dto s h o w th a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s presum ptivel y reasona bl e choi ce of a w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ce w as an abu se o f d is c r e tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 5 23 F . 3d554 , 565
- 66 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 5 2 3 F .3d5 1 9 , 5 2 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-10800 Document: 00511117479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2010