Page:Kelley v. Chicago Park District.pdf/1

  that “was imposed in violation of law”). Next, the district court committed no procedural errors when applying the sentencing guidelines to determine Curry’s sentence: It properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as discretionary, considered the factors in § 3553(a), selected a sentence based on appropriate facts, and adequately explained the sentence it imposed. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Finally, Curry’s within-guide line sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Rivera, 463 F.3d 598, 602 (7th Cir.2006) (“A sentence, such as this, that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines’ range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness…. [I]t will be a rare Guidelines sentence that is unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s request.

For the foregoing reasons, we the district court’s judgment and  Curry’s counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss Curry’s appeal.