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

No. 13

- 10483 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. TAYLOR MICHAEL MENDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 226

- 1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Taylor Michael Mendez challenges his within

- Guidelines sentence , imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Mendez was sentenced , inter alia , to 180

- months’ imprisonm ent . The distri ct court rejected Mendez’ request for his sentence to be concurrent with two state convictions that were included as relevant conduct in the instant offense.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 February 20, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2014No. 13

- 10483

Mendez contends : his sentence is substantively unreasonable , including, because of the court ’s f ail ing to provide sufficient reasons for its length and its being c onsecutive to the state convictions

. Although post

- Booker , the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the Guideline

- sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas , 40 4 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Mendez expressly does not claim procedural error. Again, he maintains only that the sentence is substantively unreason able. The sentence, including its being consecutive, is in accord with proper rules and G uideline s calculations ; therefore, it is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Candia , 454 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2006). To rebut this presumption, Mendez mu st show “the sentence does not account for a fact or that should [have] receive[d] significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors”. Unite d States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 18 6 (5 th Cir. 2009). T he district court gave sufficient e xplanation for the sentence

. See United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 362 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting within

- G uideline s sentence s require little explanati on). Mendez essentially asks this court to substitute his assessment of the sentencing

2 Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2014No. 13

- 10483

factors for the district court’s well

- reasoned assessment ; this would be directly contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall

. See 552 U.S. at 46. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2014