Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marion CATALANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-10
Citations: 291 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 07-30925
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marion CATALANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marion CATALANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30925
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 10, 2008.
John L. Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph R. Streva, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marion Catalano appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for possession of child pornography. He argues that, in light of Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), the district court committed procedural error in sentencing him when it refused to consider important factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) regarding his health and need for psychological treatment. He argues that the district court relied on case law of this court that likely has not survived Gall and that such case law had a "chilling effect" on the district court concerning the appropriate weight to give to his mitigating circumstances.
A review of the record indicates that the district court did not refuse to consider Catalano's health conditions in sentencing him. Immediately before and after pronouncing Catalano's sentence, the district court explicitly stated that it took into account his health issues. There is no indication in the record of any chilling effect concerning the weight accorded Catalano's mitigating circumstances.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.