penalty. See Lid-dell, 543 F.3d at 882-83. In Liddell, we concluded that they can. Id. at 884-85 (observing that career-offender guidelines are advisory and that after Kimbrough district courts may consider erack/powder disparity when resentencing career offenders). In the district court, Jackson anticipated Liddell by asking the court to apply § 4B1.1 “on paper” and then exercise its discretion under Booker to go below the career-offender range and sentence him as if he was not a career offender. Jackson has not pursued this argument on appeal, however, and in any event the district court concluded that a below-guidelines sentence would be inappropriate. Even after Liddell that conclusion is not unreasonable. See United States v. Otero, 495 F.3d 393, 401-02 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>).
holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable