types of more serious offenses, and concluded Washington’s “criminal history is not outside the heartland of cases such that a departure is warranted.” The district court concluded, although it had the authority to depart downward, the facts did not support such a departure. III. CONCLUSION On this record, we find the district court clearly recognized its discretionary authority to depart under sections 5H1.4 and 4A1.3(b)(l), but declined to do so. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of the downward departure is unreviewable. Washington does not argue, nor do we find, Washington’s sentence, which is within the advisory Guidelines range, is unreasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated, we affirm
holding guidelines to be only advisory holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence