Opinion
No. 06-30033, Summary Calendar.
January 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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, USDC No. 6:04-CR-60053-ALL.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
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.