Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jimmy Michael Cork preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because it does not adequately consider his history and characteristics pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and because the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2). Cork concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.