Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-30
Citations: 204 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 06-50289
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 381–381

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50289
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 30, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Clark appeals the 51-month sentence imposed following a remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Clark pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. He contends that his sentence was unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Clark contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by failing to give appropriate consideration to his attempts at obtaining treatment before his incarceration and his inability to obtain treatment in prison.
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). Such a sentence is given "great deference," and we infer that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006). We conclude that Clark has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence, which was at the bottom of the applicable range under the Sentencing Guidelines, was reasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554-55. Consequently, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.