United States v. Moore

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
June 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-31222
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NOAH MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:03-CR-282-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Noah Moore appeals the sentence imposed following his con-
viction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute heroin. He has also moved to relieve the Federal Public
Defender so that he may proceed pro se on appeal, and to permit the

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-31222
-2-
1 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
filing of additional material that he has prepared on his own.
Moore argues that the presumption of reasonableness afforded
post-Booker1 sentences by this court does not comport with the
Sixth Amendment. After Booker, sentences are reviewed only for
unreasonableness. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th
Cir. 2005). “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435
F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The grant of certiorari in United
States v. Rita, 177 Fed. App’x 357 (4th Cir.), cert. granted, 127
S. Ct. 551 (2006), has no impact on the precedent set by Alonzo.
See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999); see
also Ellis v. Collins, 956 F.2d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1992). Conse-
quently, Moore’s constitutional challenge is without merit.
Moore additionally argues that the district court gave insuf-
ficient reasons for imposing the sentence. The district court,
however, imposed a sentence within the advisory guidelines range.
Under such circumstances, we require little explanation of the rea-
sons for the sentence, and we presume that the district court con-
sidered all the factors for a fair sentence. Mares, 402 F.3d at
519. As previously noted, the grant of certiorari in Rita has no
impact on our precedent in this regard. See Short, 181 F.3d
at 624.
Moore’s motion to relieve the Federal Public Defender is de-
nied. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-31222
-3-
1998). Accordingly, his motion to permit the filing of materials
he has prepared himself is denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO RELIEVE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DENIED;
MOTION TO FILE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --