* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-50129

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO ARELLANO-CHAVEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-2555-ALL

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Arellano-Chavez was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into

the United States and was sentenced to serve 27 months in prison. ArellanoChavez appeals his sentence. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable

because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and

because the district court placed too much emphasis on the Sentencing

Guidelines. He also contends that the district court failed to take into

consideration the facts of his case, particularly the fact that his offense was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50129

2

motivated by his desire to aid his child. Relying on United States v. CastroJuarez, 425 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2005), he argues that application of the plain

error standard is inappropriate even though he did not raise these arguments

in the district court. Nevertheless, he concedes that this argument is unavailing

under this court’s jurisprudence, and he raises it to preserve it for possible

further review.

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly

calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing

Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), when

fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.

2005). When reviewing a sentence, we typically consider whether the district

court committed significant procedural error at sentencing and whether the

sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128

S. Ct. 586, 594, 597 (2007). The district court’s sentencing decision is ultimately

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 594. As Arellano-Chavez concedes,

his arguments to this court are reviewed for plain error only due to his failure

to present them to the district court. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389,

391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008).

Our review of the record shows no error, plain or otherwise, in connection

with Arellano-Chavez’s sentence. The record shows that no significant

procedural error was committed at sentencing. To the contrary, the district

court’s remarks show that it properly considered the Guidelines a starting point

in its sentencing analysis and thatthe district court’s ultimate choice of sentence

was firmly grounded in several of the § 3553(a) factors. See Mares, 402 F.3d at

518-19; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 384 (5th

Cir. 2008).

The record likewise confirms that Arellano-Chavez’s sentence, which was

within the applicable guidelines range, is reasonable. Arellano-Chavez has not
No. 08-50129

3

rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to this sentence. See

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435

F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Arellano-Chavez’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 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.