be frivolous for Visor to argue that the district court ignored its obligation to treat the sentencing guidelines as advisory, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir.2005), or that it failed to consider the relevant factors under § 3553(a), see United States v. Harris, 490 F.3d 589, 597 (7th Cir.2007); Dean, 414 F.3d at 729. “[A]ny sentence that is properly calculated under the Guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.” See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Because the district court imposed a term within the guidelines range, we may presume it is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and
holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that district court may not presume reasonableness of guidelines sentencing range in particular case