Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-22
Citations: 206 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 05-61014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-61014
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 22, 2006.
David Harrison Fulcher, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory Joseph Weber, Law Office of Darren J. Lamarca, Clinton, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnny L. Lewis appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Lewis argues that the district court effectively imposed a mandatory sentence under the Guidelines. Lewis concedes that the district court did not believe that the Guidelines were binding. Because Lewis was not erroneously sentenced under a mandatory sentencing guideline scheme and because the district court did not consider the Guidelines to be mandatory, Lewis's argument lacks merit.
Lewis also contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors on the record. He does not challenge the calculation of his guideline sentencing range. Because Lewis's sentence was within the properly calculated guideline range of 10 to 16 months, we infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); 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). Lewis has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guideline sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.