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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

REVISED October 23, 2008

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41116

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AMBROSIO DURAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-492-1

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ambrosio Duran was convicted of possession of more than 100 kilograms

of marijuana with intent to distribute and sentenced to serve 37 months in

prison. Duran appeals his sentence. We review his sentence to determine

whether the district court committed significant procedural error at sentencing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41116

2

and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). 

Duran contends that his sentence should be summarily vacated and

remanded because Gall and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007)

have wrought enormous change in sentencing law. This argument lacks merit.

See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 388 (5th Cir. 2008); see

also United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, – S. Ct. –, 2008 WL 3996218 (2008).

Duran also contends that the district court committed significant

procedural error at sentencing by failing to give adequate reasons to support its

choice of sentence. Duran did not raise this claim in the district court. Rather,

his post sentencing objection focused on the substantive reasonableness of his

sentence. Because Duran did not raise this particular procedural

reasonableness argumentin the district court, it is reviewed for plain error only.

See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th

Cir. 1994).

Our review of the record shows that “[t]he sentencing judge 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 decision making

authority.” See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Although the

district court’s rationale for its choice of sentence was succinct, it was not

required to provide a “lengthy explanation”for its choice of a sentence within the

pertinent guidelines range, and a review of the sentencing transcript confirms

thatit considered the parties’ arguments concerning the sentence Duran should

receive. See id.; see also United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 657-59 (5th Cir.

2008). Duran’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence is

unavailing. 
No. 07-41116

3

Duran’s contention that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

likewise fails. Duran attempts to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to his sentence by contending that his sentence is greater than

necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at

2462; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Duran’s

disagreement with the district court’s assessment of an appropriate sentence is

insufficient to show that his sentence is unreasonable or that the sentence

imposed represents an abuse of the district court’s vast sentencing discretion.

See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554; see also United States v. Rowan, 530 F.3d 379, 381

(5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.