* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-50141

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR MEDINA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-143-3

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Medina appeals his three concurrent 151-month sentences imposed

following his guilty plea convictions for one count of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine and two counts of aiding and abetting possession

with intent to distribute cocaine. He does not argue that the district court erred

in calculating the applicable guidelines range, but contends only that the

stipulation thatthe sentences atissue run consecutively to a prior undischarged

sentence was erroneous.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50141

2

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States

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

Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). This

court reviews the sentence imposed for reasonableness in light of those factors.

Id. at 519. In Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007), the Supreme

Court established a bifurcated process for conducting a reasonableness review.

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Pursuant

to Gall,this court mustfirst determine whether the district court committed any

procedural errors, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the

Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing

to adequately explain the chosen sentence -- including an explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.

If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, this court will

“consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an

abuse-of-discretion standard . . . tak[ing] into account the totality of the

circumstances.” Id.; see also United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808 (5th

Cir. 2008) (discussing the Gall approach to reasonableness review). Further, “a

sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively

reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); see also

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). Likewise, “a rebuttable

presumption of reasonableness applies to a consecutive sentence imposed within

the parameters ofthe advisory federal guidelines.” United States v. Candia, 454

F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). Both 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3

authorize district courts to impose sentences to run concurrently with or

consecutively to undischarged sentences.

Medina complains thatthe district courtfailed to sufficiently articulate its

application of the § 3553(a) factors. Because he did not object on this basis in the
No. 08-50141

3

district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. RodriguezRodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2008). In imposing the instant

sentences, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors.

The district court was not required to engage in “robotic incantations that each

statutory factor has been considered.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707

(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Medina also argues that the district court imposed unreasonably long

sentences by stipulating that his sentences were to run consecutive to his prior

undischarged sentence. Even assuming that Medina sufficiently objected on this

basis in the district court such that review under the abuse of discretion

standard is appropriate, see Williams, 517 F.3d at 808, Medina’s conclusory

assertions fail to establish that the district court erred. Medina’s consecutive

sentences are within the applicable guidelines range and are entitled to a

rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. Candia, 454 F.3d at 473.

Furthermore, had the district court not specified one way or the other, the

statutory presumption would have been that the instant sentences would run

consecutively to his prior undischarged sentence. See § 3584(a); Candia, 454

F.3d at 475.

AFFIRMED.