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

No. 11-50375 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RODRIGO SANCHEZ-LERMA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-298-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Rodrigo Sanchez-Lerma was convicted of transporting illegal aliens for financial gain and conspiracy to transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He was sentenced within the Sentencing Guidelines to 21 months of imprisonment on bot h counts, to run concurrently, and to concurre n t t h ree-year terms of supervised release. He appeals his sentence, claiming that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 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 June 28 , 20 12 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 for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2012No. 11-50375

We review sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Our review is bifurcated. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first determine whether the sentencing court committ e d a s i gnificant procedural error. Id. If we conclude t h at the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, w e will then proceed to review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, applying an ab u s e -of-discretion standard. United States v. Delgado-Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir. 2009). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reason ab l e . ” United States v. Campos-Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. R o driguez , 602 F.3d 346, 362 (5th Cir. 2010). However, if a defendant has not preserved an issue for review in the district court, review is for plain error. See Mon d ra gon-Santiago , 564 F.3d at 361. In this case, Sanchez-Lerma failed to alert the district court to the alleged procedural error in such a manner that the district court could correct itself and obviate the need for our review and further failed to object to the subs t a n t ive reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, our review is for plain error. See id. at 360-61. To p r e vail, Sanchez-Lerma must demonstrate an error that is clear or obvious and that affects substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If such a showing is made, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. Although Sanchez-Lerma contends tha t t he district court committed procedural error by failing to properly calculat e h is sentence, he has failed to demonstrate a ny error in the district court’s calculations. Moreover, to the extent that he suggests that his sentence resulted in an unwarranted disparity

2 Case: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2012No. 11-50375

between him and other defendants who obtained a reduced sentence b a s e d on the fast-track early disposition program, th at ar gu m e nt i s f o reclosed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 & n.4(5th Cir. 2008). The record also refutes his assertion that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court considered the mitigation arguments raised by SanchezLerma and expressly stated that i t had considered the individual § 3553(a) factors as well as the allocution of the parties and the information contained in the presentence report in determining the sentence. The district court did not fail to consider the § 3553(a) factors but instead made an i ndividualized sentencing decision based on the facts of the case and in l i gh t o f t h e § 3553(a) factors. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 50-51. Accordingly, Sanchez-Lerma has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is the result of any procedural error. He also argues that his 21-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is three mont h s h i gh er than the sentence recommended by the Government. His disagreement with the district court’s assessment of an appropriate sentence under t h e § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 200 9). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-50375 Document: 00511903249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2012