United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 10, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40256
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
CARLOS TREVINO-SALAZAR,
Defendant-
Appellant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-817-ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Juges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Trevino-Salazar (Trevino) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
conviction for transporting undocumented aliens within the United States by means of a motor vehicle
for private financial gain. Although Trevino concedes that his sentence is to be reviewed for
reasonableness under this court’s precedent, Trevino also asserts that the presumption of
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
reasonableness standard is unconstitutional. Trevino acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed
and raises it only to preserve for further review. This court is bound by the precedent of previous
panels absent “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior
precedent.” United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).
Trevino also argues that his sentence of 44 months of imprisonment, which was within the
applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because
the district court failed to consider mitigating factors. Given Trevino’s extensive criminal history and
the seriousness of his instant offense, he has not shown that the sentence was unreasonable or that
this court should not defer to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. See United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
-2-