USA v. Bunch, No. 07-10277 (5th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-10277 c/w No. 07-10283 Summary Calendar December 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER RYAN BUNCH Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-280-ALL USDC No. 3:06-CR-315-ALL Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Christopher Ryan Bunch appeals the 66-month concurrent sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for bank robbery, access device fraud, and identification fraud. He argues that his sentence violates United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and is unreasonable. The presumption of reasonableness afforded a sentence within a properly calculated advisory * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-10277 c/w No. 07-10283 guideline range is consistent with Booker. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). The record reflects that the district court considered Bunch s arguments, statements from Bunch and his family, the recommendation of the presentence report, the applicable guideline range, and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the district court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable, and we may infer that the district court considered all the facts for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462-70; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). Bunch asserts that he has rebutted the presumption of reasonableness because of various mitigating factors. There is nothing to indicate that the district court improperly failed to consider sentencing factors entitled to significant weight, gave significant weight to improper factors, or erred in balancing the factors to such a degree that the sentence was not reasonable. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.