UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danford TAYLOR-WALTER, Defendant-Appellant, 178 F. App'x 903

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.