United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41437
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO LLANAS-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CR-321-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodolfo Llanas-Garcia (Llanas) appeals the 51-month prison
sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to assaulting a federal agent
causing bodily injury while the agent was performing his official
duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b). We AFFIRM.
Llanas contends, for the first time on appeal, that his
sentence should be vacated because the district court did not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-41437
-2-
articulate any of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to
the facts of his case, thus failing to exercise or to show that the
court exercised its discretion. The plain-error standard of review
is applicable. See United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d
437, 440-42 (5th Cir. 2000).
Under the discretionary sentencing scheme established by
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts
retain the duty to consider the Sentencing Guidelines along with
the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43
(2005). Llanas’s sentence is within the guideline range and is
presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d
551, 553-55 (5th Cir. 2006). We infer in our reasonableness review
that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, including
Llanas’s history and characteristics, in imposing sentence. See
Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554. Consequently, Llanas is not entitled to
relief on grounds of plain error. See Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d
at 440-42.
AFFIRMED.