United States v. Salee

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10449
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM CHEN SALEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-179
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Chen Salee appeals his sentence following his guilty
plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more
than 50 grams of methamphetamine. For the first time on appeal,
Salee asserts that the Government failed to honor its agreement to
file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for downward departure if Salee
provided information regarding “several other individuals believed
to be involved in [the] same drug trafficking conspiracy.” Salee
asserts that, although he fulfilled his end of the bargain by
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-10449
-2-
giving the Government useful information, he received no benefit in
return. Because Salee neither shows that the Government bargained
away its discretion to file a § 5K1.1 motion nor argues that the
Government acted with unconstitutional motive, his downward
departure claim is without merit. See Wade v. United States, 504
U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992); United States v. Urbani, 967 F.2d 106,
110-11 (5th Cir. 1992).
Salee next argues that his sentence, imposed after the Supreme
Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
is unreasonable. Salee contends that the district court failed to
take into consideration his acceptance of responsibility for the
charged offense and his “timely cooperation with the Government.”
Salee also suggests that the district court failed to consider his
serious drug problem and his minimal “involvement in the entire
conspiracy” as a “high ranking drug dealer.” Salee further cites
alleged district court error in holding Salee accountable for “the
actions of other co-conspirators and their drug amounts.” For
these reasons, Salee argues that he should have been sentenced
below the calculated guideline range.
Post-Booker sentences are reviewed only for
“unreasonableness.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). If, in the exercise of discretion, the
sentencing judge imposes a sentence within a properly calculated
guideline range, we will infer that consideration was afforded all
No. 05-10449
-3-
the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. Id.
at 519. Moreover, given the deference due the sentencing judge’s
discretion, we will rarely say that a sentence within the properly
calculated Guideline range was unreasonable. Id.
Here, the district court fulfilled its duty to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553 factors and sentenced Salee within a properly
calculated Guidelines range. Accordingly, Salee has failed to
demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was
unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. See also United States
v. Alonzo, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-20130, 2006 WL 39119 at *3 (5th
Cir. Jan. 9, 2006) (agreeing with sister circuits that “a sentence
within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively
reasonable.”)
AFFIRMED.