tence that “was imposed in violation of law”). Next, the district court committed no procedural errors when applying the sentencing guidelines to determine Curry’s sentence: It properly calculated the guidelines range, treated the guidelines as discretionary, considered the factors in § 3553(a), selected a sentence based on appropriate facts, and adequately explained the sentence it imposed. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Finally, Curry’s within-guide line sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Rivera, 463 F.3d 598, 602 (7th Cir.2006) (“A sentence, such as this, that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines’ range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness…. [I]t will be a rare Guidelines sentence that is unreasonable.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s request.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we Affirm the district court’s judgment and Grant Curry’s counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss Curry’s appeal.
Chapman KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 08-3701, 08-3712.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided Feb. 15, 2011.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied April 19, 2011.
