to pay. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM MeCorvey’s convictions and sentences. 1 . The parties stipulated that McCorvey had a prior felony conviction for purposes of the instant § 922(g) charge. Expert testimony established that the firearm and ammunition found in the house traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. 2 . The court denied McCorvey’s motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. 3 . McCorvey also challenges the conclusion that the firearm was "in connection with” drug distribution and whether the court plainly erred in imposing a sentence that was sufficient and "a greater sentence should not be necessary.” Upon review, we affirm without further discussion. See United States v. Garcia-Delgado, 184 Fed.Appx. 851 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 695
holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of  3553a recognizing as reasonable a sentence that is sufficient but no greater than necessary to comport with the goals of  3553a2 holding that probation is not a sentence recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed