Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Byron CHRISENBERRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-22
Citations: 290 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 07-10946
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Byron CHRISENBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 290
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Byron CHRISENBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10946
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2008.
Camille Elizabeth Sparks, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary D. Smart, Robinson & Smart, Arlington, TX, for D efendant-App ell ant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Byron Chrisenberry appeals his 240-month sentence following his guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Chrisenber-ry avers that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) whether the sentence imposed resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity between himself and his codefendants. Because the district court correctly calculated and reviewed Chrisenberry's guidelines range, the court "necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted disparities." See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 599, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The fact that Chrisenberry's sentence was within the pertinent guidelines range reduces this court's concern with sentencing disparities to a "minimum." See United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir.2007). Moreover, the district court was aware of the sentences of the codefendants, who had cooperated with the Government and received downward departures.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.