221, 222 (3d Cir.1990); United States v. Alvarez, 51 F.3d 36, 39 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Gregory, 932 F.2d 1167, 1168 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Gant, 902 F.2d 570, 572-73 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Vizcarra-Angulo, 904 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Bromberg, 933 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Wright, 895 F.2d 718, 719-22 (11th Cir.1990) (per cu-riam); Hazel, 928 F.2d at 423-24. 16 . See Bromberg, 933 F.2d at 897. 17 . United States v. King, 53 F.3d 589, 591 (3d Cir.1995); United States v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir.1994). 18 . Johnson, 33 F.3d at 10. 19 . King, 53 F.3d at 591. 20 . Witte v. United States, - U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 2209, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995). 21 . United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Porter, 909 F.2d at
holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable holding  3742a does not authorize appellate review of a district courts underlying factfinding so long as the sentence imposed was within a properly calculated guideline range holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable holding that when a court miscalculates the guideline range yet imposes a sentence that falls within a properly calculated guideline range the sentence enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable