Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Todd CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-05
Citations: 220 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 06-30700
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Todd CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Todd CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30700
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 5, 2007.
Sonia Peters Cassidy, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elton B. Richey, Jr., Law Office of Elton B. Richey Jr., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Todd Clark appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Clark argues that his sentence of 71 months of imprisonment, which was at the top of the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.
Clark's sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. See United, States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Little explanation of a sentence is required when a district court expressly imposes a sentence within the advisory guideline range. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Clark has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated Guidelines sentence was unreasonable, and he is therefore not entitled to relief. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.