
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danford TAYLOR-WALTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-13244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 26, 2006.
    David Paul Rhodes, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Darlene Calzón Barror, Law Office of Darlene Calzón Barror, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before ANDERSON, FAY and SILER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

We note that appellant does not challenge his conviction, and it is accordingly affirmed. After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the appellant’s sentence is also due to be affirmed. The government’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction to review the sentence for reasonableness is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Martinez, 434 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.2006). Appellant’s challenges to the district court’s denial of the safety-valve adjustment and a minor role reduction, as well as his challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, are rejected for the reasons discussed at oral argument.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.  