#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Garcia VAZQUEZ-CASARES, a.k.a. 103M19-03, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-13240

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 16, 2007.

Jon Dirk Uman, Gainesville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Francis Todd Williams, Gainesville, FL, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*901Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Omar Garcia Vazquez-Casares appeals his 211-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and more than 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine. Vazquez-Casares argues that the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level leadership-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Vazquez-Casares contends that the district clearly erred in finding a government witness’s testimony supporting the enhancement as credible,1 and that moreover, with or without this witness, the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement. Vazquez-Casares also argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider properly the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Section 3Bl.l(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines allows the district court to increase a defendant’s base offense level by two levels if he was “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity....” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). In this case, the district court did not clearly err by imposing the Section 3B1.1(c) enhancement, because the evidence supports that Vazquez-Casares asserted control and influence over a co-conspirator and recruited and arranged for the co-conspirator to deliver drugs for him. *See United States v. Ramirez,*426 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing standard of review and factors a district court may consider in imposing this enhancement).

We also conclude that the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. The court specifically considered Vazquez-Casares’s argument for a sentence below his applicable guideline range based on his personal history and the nature of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Furthermore, the court considered the available sentences and consulted the Guidelines, which it noted were advisory. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3) and (4). The court sentenced Vazquez-Casares within the applicable guideline range, which carries an expectation of reasonableness. *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). Although the court did not discuss all the factors listed in Section 3553(a), sentencing courts are not required to specifically mention each factor. *United States v. Scott,*426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir.2005). Accordingly, because the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and VazquezCasares’s arguments, we conclude that his sentence was reasonable.2

AFFIRMED.

1

. Because Vazquez-Casares has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the great deference we afford the credibility determinations by the trier-of-fact, we do not find that the district court erred in concluding that the government witness's testimony was credible. *See United States v. McPhee,*336 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir.2003).

2

. Vazquez-Casares also argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him based on a quantity of drugs that was greater than the *902amount found by the jury. However, there was no constitutional error in the district court’s use of extra-verdict enhancements because it applied the guidelines as advisory. *United States v. Chau,*426 F.3d 1318, 1323-24(11th Cir.2005).