### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-40568 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN CARLOS TORRES-LOPEZ, also known as Juan Torres Lopez, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CR-2651-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Torres-Lopez (Torres) plea d e d guilty to illegal reentry following deportation after conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2 )

. The district court sentenced Torres to 77 months in prison. In this appeal, Torres argues that th e district court erred when it assessed one criminal history point under former U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) in light of the amendment deleting this provision and that his 77-month sentence is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 11, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40568 Document: 00511569291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2011No. 10-40568

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Torres did not raise in the district court his argument regarding § 4A1.1(e), our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Torres was sentenced prior to the effective date of Amendment 742, which eliminated criminal history points based on recency by deleting former § 4A1.1(e). United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines M a n u a l , Supp. to Appendix C, Amendment 742, pp. 354-56 (Nov. 1, 201 0 )

. Therefore, the district court correctly applied former § 4A 1

. 1 ( e)

. See United States v. Windham , 991 F.2d 181, 182-83 (5th Cir. 1 993). Torres also argues t h a t his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Because Torres objected in the district court to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for the same reasons he raises here, we review the district court’s application of the guidelines is de novo and its findings of fact is for clear error. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 7 5 1 , 7 64 (5th Cir. 2008). T orres’s arguments regarding the district court’s consideration of variou s sentencing fact o r s a mount to nothing more than his disagreement with the court’s weighing of those facto r s an d th e ap p ro p ri at e n e s s of his within-guidelines sentence. Torres’s disagreeme n t does not suffice to show error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 5 2 3 F

. 3 d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Torres has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence, nor has he shown that his sentence

was unreasonable. See Gall v. U n i t e d S tates, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2 006). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-40568 Document: 00511569291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2011