
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun P. DYNES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-11212
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 19, 2012.
    Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Shaun P. Dynes appeals from the 105-month below-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for distribution of child pornography. He argues only that the district court erred by imposing a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) based upon its finding that Dynes received, or expected to receive, child pornography in exchange for his sharing of child pornography images on a peer-to-peer network.

As part of our review of the procedural reasonableness of the sentence imposed, we must consider whether the district court erred in its calculation of the applicable guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez-Mesa, 443 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.2006).

This court has upheld § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancements in several prior cases presenting facts similar to those at issue here. See United States v. Onken, 440 Fed.Appx. 304, 305 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam); United States v. Roman, 393 Fed.Appx. 149, 149-50 (5th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Moore, 328 Fed.Appx. 308, 309 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam). While these cases are not binding, we find them persuasive. See United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir.2009).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     