United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51255
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL JOEL VILLALOBOS-RIOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(3:05-CR-739-ALL)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Joel Villalobos-Rios, having pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, challenges his sentence
on two bases.
He first challenges its reasonableness, pursuant to United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (requiring, inter alia,
“reasonableness” review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by
the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). After offense-level
adjustments for a prior drug-trafficking conviction and acceptance
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of responsibility, his offense level was 21, corresponding to an
advisory Guidelines range of 41-51 months imprisonment. Villalobos
requested a sentence below that range. The imposed 41-month
sentence was within, and at the low end of, it.
Post-Booker, sentences are reviewed for reasonableness. E.g.,
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006). Because
the sentence was within the properly-calculated Guideline range
(Villalobos does not contend otherwise), it is presumed reasonable.
E.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).
Such a sentence is given “great deference”, and we infer the
sentencing court “has considered all the [§ 3553(a)] factors for a
fair sentence”. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Further, when the court
states it is imposing a sentence within the Guideline range, as was
done here, “little explanation [for such sentence] is required”.
Id. Villalobos has failed to rebut his sentence’s presumed
reasonableness. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554-55.
Villalobos also challenges, in the light of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of
prior felony and aggravated-felony convictions as sentencing
factors, rather than elements of the offense. As he concedes, this
challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523
U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See, e.g., United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410
2
F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).
Nonetheless, he raises it in order to preserve its further review.
AFFIRMED
3