### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40069 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. HOMERO SANCHEZ

- ARRIAGA, also known as Gustavo Castillo , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12

- CR

- 932

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Homero Sanchez

- Arriaga appeals the 120

- month sentence imposed for his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to ad dress his request for a variance and consider his cooperation as a miti gating factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court effectively

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 22, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2014No. 14

- 40069

denied him any credit for acceptance of responsibility by sentencing him to the statutory maximum sentence

. We review his arguments for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain error, Sanchez

- Arriaga must show that the error was clear or obvious and affects his sub stantial rights

. See i d. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Un ited States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)). T here is no indication that the district court thought it lacked the authority to vary downward to account for Sanchez

- Arriaga’s cooperation. See United States v. Robinson , 741 F.3d 588 , 599, 601 (5th Cir. 2014)

. Thus, there is no plain error in this regard. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. Because the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range, little explanation of the sentence was required, see Rita v. U nited States , 551 U.S. 338, 35 6

- 57 (2007),

an d we will infer that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, even if the district court plainly erred, Sanchez

- Arriaga has not shown that his substantial rights were aff ected. See United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence by sentencing a defendant to the statutory maximum sentence in this circumstance. See U nited States v. Coil , 280 F. App’x 358, 361

- 62 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, there is no clear or obvious

error. See United States v. Guerrero

- Robledo , 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Moreover, Sanchez

- Arriaga ’s arguments against the imposition of the statutory maximum sentence do not show a clear error of judgment on the

2 Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2014No. 14

- 40069

dis trict court’s part in balancing the § 3553(a) factors; instead, they constitute a mere disagreement with the weighing of those factors. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Accordingly, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within

- guidelines sentence. See United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-40069 Document: 00512878709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2014