
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Lee BRUNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10654.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 29, 2005.
    Renee Harris Toliver, US Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Allen Curtis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Scott Lee Brunson pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of a machine gun and was sentenced to serve 71 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Brunson now appeals his conviction and sentence. Brunson argues that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), is unconstitutional. This argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Knutson, 113 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir.1997).

Brunson contends that the district court erred when it found that his offense involved three or more firearms and adjusted his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(l). Brunson further contends that the district court erred in determining that he was a leader or organizer of the offense and adjusting his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c). Brunson has not shown that the disputed adjustments involve either a misinterpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358-363 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 1998).

Finally, Brunson argues that his sentence is invalid under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Brunson has not shown that he is entitled to relief on this claim, as he has not established that “the sentencing judge — sentencing under an advisory scheme rather then a mandatory one — would have reached a significantly different result.” See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir.2005).

Brunson has not shown error in the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, that judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     