Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-10
Citations: 281 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 07-10794
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 281
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10794
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 10, 2008.
Kim L. McCabe, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Jackson Herrington, Plano, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Castillo appeals the 190-month prison sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing methamphetamine. Castillo acknowledges that the sentence was within the properly calculated advisory guidelines sentencing range and is presumed to be reasonable. He contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court declined to impose a sentence below the guidelines range based on his contention that his criminal history was overstated.
Castillo has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness because he has not identified any factor under 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) that was not accounted for by the district court, any factor that the district court should not have considered, or "a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors." See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2007). Consequently, Castillo cannot show that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence within the advisory guideline range. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.