United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40727
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO CORTEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(7:05-CR-614-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Cortez appeals the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed
after his guilty plea to taking a vehicle by force, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2119. Cortez claims the district court reversibly
erred by imposing a Guidelines sentence without considering his
troubled and violent youth in the light of the sentencing factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences
are reviewed only for unreasonableness; nevertheless, a district
court has a duty to consider the § 3553(a) factors as well as a
duty to correctly determine the applicable Guidelines range. E.g.,
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19, cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 43 (2005). If, in the exercise of discretion, the district
court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
range, little explanation is required, and this court will infer
that the district court considered all of the factors for a fair
sentence set for in the Guidelines. Id. at 519. Given the
deference due the district court’s discretion under the Booker
regime, “it will be rare for a reviewing court to say such a
sentence is ‘unreasonable’”. Id.
The record reflects that the district court considered the
relevant statutory sentencing factors. Cortez has not shown that
the sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not defer
to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. Id.
AFFIRMED
-2-