United States v. McDonald

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30262
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MCDONALD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50096
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher McDonald pleaded guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to mail fraud and health care fraud and was
sentenced to 37 months in prison for each count, to run
concurrently, three years of supervised release on each count, to
run concurrently, $61,258.16 in restitution, and a $200 special
assessment.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-30262
-2-
2 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
McDonald argues that the district court plainly erred in
imposing his post-Booker2 sentence pursuant to a mandatory
guideline sentencing scheme. Booker excised from the Sentencing
Reform Act the mandatory duty of district courts to apply the
Sentencing Guidelines and effectively rendered the Guidelines
advisory only, and McDonald was sentenced under an advisory
guidelines scheme. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 259. Therefore,
McDonald’s argument lacks merit.
McDonald also contends that his sentence was unreasonable
because, in light of his cooperation with the Government, the
district court could have chosen not to impose prison time if it
had not followed the Guidelines. He does not challenge the
calculation of his guideline sentencing range.
Because McDonald’s sentence was within a properly calculated
guideline range of 37 to 46 months, we infer that the district
court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in
the Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). “[A] sentence
within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th
Cir. 2006). McDonald has failed to demonstrate that his properly
calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See id.; Mares,
402 F.3d at 519.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --