
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jacob Seth THORNTON, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-10047 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/12/2016
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, David E. Sloan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    ' Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jacob Seth Thornton challenges the reasonableness of the 188-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Thornton argues that the child pornography Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 et seq., lack ah empirical basis and, as a result, his sentence is unreasonable. He recognizes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121-22 (5th Cir. 2011), but raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review. Thornton suggests that the district court erred by including the child pornography guidelines in its 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis, an argument directly contrary to Molina-Martinez v. United States, .— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016), which explains the importance of consulting the guidelines in sentencing defendants. Additionally, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     