United States v. Adkins

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
August 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-51344
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMMY JOE ADKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-036-2
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sammy Joe Adkins pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting
distribution of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and was
sentenced to 100 months in prison to be followed by five years of
supervised release. Adkins appeals, asserting that his sentence
is unreasonable because the district court did not accord proper
weight to the sentencing factors given in 18 U.S.C. § 3553; and
thus, effectively reinstated the mandatory Guidelines regime
condemned in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Adkins also contends that the court should have taken into

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-51344
-2-
account his age, his wife’s health, his good work history, and
the disparity between his sentence and that of his co-defendant,
who received 36 months.
A presumption of reasonableness applies to a district court
within-guidelines sentence that reflects a proper application of
the Guidelines. See Rita v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2007
WL 1772146 at *6-8 (June 21, 2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435
F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The record shows that the
district court fulfilled its duty to consider the relevant
18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors in addition to the Guidelines, and
sentenced Adkins to 100 months of imprisonment, the lowest end of
the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares, 402
F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). There is no indication that
the sentence imposed is unreasonable. Id. at 519.
Under the Guidelines, employment record; family ties and
responsibilities; age, unless the defendant is elderly and
infirm; and health, unless the defendant is seriously infirm, are
not proper considerations when deciding whether to depart. See
U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.1-5H1.6.
The record is silent regarding the reasons for Adkins’s co-
defendant’s sentence and whether the defendants are similarly
situated with respect to criminal history and circumstances. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --