Case: 10-50467 Document: 00511382420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2011
No. 10-50467
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL ARIAS-RUBIO, also known as Raul Rubio-Arias,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-3061-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Arias-Rubio (Arias) appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction for importing marijuana and possessing with intent to
distribute marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater than necessary
to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that application of the career
offender enhancement overstated the seriousness of his offense, and that his
background, age, medical conditions, and family responsibilities warranted a
downward variance.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-50467 Document: 00511382420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
No. 10-50467
We review Arias’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence for abuse of discretion because he preserved this issue before the
district court. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360-61
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009). Because the district court imposed
a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively
reasonable, and this court “will infer that the judge has considered all the factors
for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007).
Arias’s assertions are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1930 (2010); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused
its discretion by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the advisory sentencing
guidelines range. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2