Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael P. LATHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-23
Citations: 544 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 12-31095
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael P. LATHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael P. LATHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-31095
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 23, 2013.
Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Alexander Coker Van Hook, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael P. Latham appeals the 21-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to transfer obscene materials to a minor. He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not give due weight to his personal circumstances and because it gives inordinate weight to letters from his estranged wife and her father.
We presume that the sentence within the proper guideline range is reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Given the district court's thorough consideration of the arguments, evidence, and sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Latham's contentions are reduced to a mere disagreement with the district court, and he thus fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.2010). Latham's invitation to substitute his assessment of the relevant factors for the district court's assessment is contrary to the deferential review mandated by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.