United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 25, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-51368
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO GONZALEZ-CAMPOS, also known as Robert Manuel Cordova,
also known as Armando Arturo Gonzalez-Robles,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(3:06-CR-1054-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Gonzalez-Campo appeals the 51-month term of
imprisonment imposed after his guilty plea to illegal reentry into
the United States after being deported. Gonzalez contends that the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence within the advisory
guidelines range without properly considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553
sentencing factors, particularly in the light of his prior crime 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
violence conviction being 12 years old. For the first time on
appeal he also argues that the crime of illegal reentry is not
serious.
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, this court will infer that the district court considered all
of the factors for a fair sentence set forth 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 expressly
considered the § 3553 sentencing factors. Gonzalez has not shown
that the sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not
defer to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. E.g.,
id.
AFFIRMED
-2-