
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael A. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11413
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2007.
    Paul David Macaluso, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlton C. McLarty, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Watkins appeals following the district court’s resentencing of him for his conviction of one charge of possession of cocaine and methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Watkins argues that his sentence is unreasonable under the facts of the case, particularly the facts concerning his sentencing adjustment for a firearm, his criminal history, and the amount of drugs for which he was responsible. He vehemently contends that a lower sentence was appropriate and that his sentence is unreasonably high. Our review of the record shows no clear error in connection with the district court’s exercise of its broad sentencing discretion. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed, (May 21, 2007) (06-11834). Watkins has failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable.

Watkins challenges this court’s jurisprudence affording a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the pertinent guidelines range. This challenge is unavailing. See Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Watkins also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. This challenge is, as he concedes, unavailing because it was decided adversely to him in his prior appeal. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir.1998), abrogation on other-grounds recognized, United States v. Farras, 481 F.3d 289, 291-92 (5th Cir.2007).

Watkins has shown no error in connection with his sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     