United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-41267 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIRSO CASTILLO-ARREOLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 1:04-CR-348-5
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tirso Castillo-Arreola pleaded guilty of conspiracy to trans-
port and harbor aliens within the United States and transporting
aliens within the United States. The court sentenced him to the
top of the guideline range, 105 months’ imprisonment on each count
to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to his other
sentences. The court stated that it adopted the findings of the
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-41267
-2-
presentence report and considered the evidence adduced at the trial
of Castillo-Arreola’s co-defendants.
Castillo-Arreola argues that the court imposed the sentence
without consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Because counsel raised no objection to the court’s
statement of its justification or lack thereof for the sentence, we
review only for plain error. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d
360, 368 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
The decision in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), is dispositive. There
we stated unequivocally that “[i]f the sentencing judge exercises
her discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated
Guideline range, in our reasonableness review we will infer that
the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set
forth in the Guidelines.” Id. at 519. Castillo-Arreola does not
argue that his sentence is unreasonable or that his guideline range
was improperly calculated. Because the sentence is within the
guideline range, we infer that the district court considered the §
3553 factors. See Mares, id.; United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya,
219 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2000). Castillo-Arreola has failed to
show plain error in his sentencing.
AFFIRMED.