Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renold Scott FAULK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-30
Citations: 215 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 06-30033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renold Scott FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renold Scott FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30033
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 30, 2007.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John L Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen H. Shapiro, Shapiro, Sharp & Dooley, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Renold Scott Faulk appeals the 121-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).
Faulk'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). Giving "great deference" to such a sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Faulk has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See id. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.