except one. While the ratio used here was higher than in United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 414 n. 3 (5th Cir.2003) (mentioning a 1 to .5 ratio), that case did not establish the correct ratio as a matter of law. See id. at 413-14 & n. 3. The ratio in Booker was not an issue and the court merely mentioned the ratio in a footnote. See id. at 414 n. 3. Even if it was error to apply the 1 to .75 ratio as opposed to the 1 to .5 ratio from Booker, the sentence here is nonetheless presumed reasonable. The properly calculated guideline range using the Booker ratio (1 to .5) is 168 to 210 months. Because the 188-month sentence imposed by the court falls within this 168 to 210 range it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Medina-Argueta, 454 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Britton has not overcome that presumption.
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 sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable