Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier Jonque WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-01
Citations: 225 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 06-50325
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier Jonque WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xavier Jonque WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50325
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 1, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bertram Oliver Wood, III, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Xavier Jonque Wheeler appeals his 322-month sentence for attempting to manufacture 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Wheeler argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is based on judge-found facts rather than facts that he admitted or that were found by a jury.
The district court is allowed to find facts and is required to determine a defendant's proper guideline range of imprisonment before sentencing him. United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005). Wheeler's sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is entitled to great deference. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005). Giving such deference to Wheeler's sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Wheeler has failed to demonstrate that his sentence was unreasonable. See id. at 519-20. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.