
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Lee POWELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 21, 2016.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr,, Margaret Mary Em-bry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesse Lee Powell, Jr., appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 46 months in prison imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Powell argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. More specifically, he contends that his sentence is excessive given his exceptionally poor physical health and the fact that he committed the offense as part of a plan to gather enough money to afford a kidney transplant.

We need not decide whether the plain-error standard of review is applicable here because Powell’s sentence can be affirmed even under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.2008). Powell’s sentence falls within the properly-calculated guidelines range, and it- is thus afforded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009)..

Powell has not shown that his sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or reflects a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. His mere disagreement with the district court’s determination that a 46-month sentence is appropriate is insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his sentence. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir.2012).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
     