* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40384

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SANTOS TRINIDAD CAMPOS-SALAZAR,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-1373-ALL

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santos Trinidad Campos-Salazar (Campos) pleaded guilty to being an

alien unlawfully found in the United States following deportation and was

sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment. Campos argues that his

sentence, which was within the recommended guidelines range, was

unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain the basis for

imposing the within-guidelines sentence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 18, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40384

2

Campos did not challenge the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for

the sentence imposed in the district court. Accordingly, his argument is

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437,

441 (5th Cir. 2000). Campos thus must demonstrate that (1) there was an error;

(2) the error was clear or obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial

rights. Id. If these conditions are met, this court may exercise its discretion to

correctthe error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings. Id.

In reviewing a district court’s sentencing decision, this court must first

determine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error.

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007). The district court commits

a procedural error if it miscalculates or fails to calculate the proper guidelines

range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to

adequately explain its chosen sentence or any deviation from the guidelines

range. Id. at 597. Although the Supreme Court in Rita v. United States stated

that a sentencing judge “will normally” explain why he has rejected the

defendant’s arguments, the Court did not mandate that a sentencing court state

reasons for rejecting a defendant’s specific arguments for a lower sentence. 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). A sentencing judge is required only to “set forth

enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking

authority.” Id.

Campos has not shown that the district court plainly erred by failing to

sufficiently state its reasons for sentencing. The district court’s adoption of the

presentence report and its consideration of Campos’s arguments for a downward

departure and the § 3553(a) factors in determining his within-guidelines

sentence constituted sufficient reasons for imposing his sentence. See Rita, 127
No. 08-40384

3

S. Ct. at 2468-69; United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, No. 08-5101, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8691 (Dec. 1, 2008); United States v.

Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.