Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carolina SOLANO-BRISENO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-21
Citations: 260 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 06-41417
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carolina SOLANO-BRISENO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 260
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carolina SOLANO-BRISENO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41417
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Melissa Joy Garcia, Garcia & Garcia, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carolina Solano-Briseno appeals her sentence for transporting illegal aliens for private financial gain. Solano-Briseno concedes that the district court imposed a sentence within a properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, but she argues that the sentence was an unreasonable sentence considering the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). When the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range and gives proper weight to the Guidelines and § 3553 factors, this court "will give great deference to that sentence" and "will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines." United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2466-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
On appeal, Solano-Briseno argues that the nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to protect the public from harm, the need to provide her with education or training, and the need to avoid sentencing disparity all weigh in favor of a lesser sentence. Solano-Briseno raised these issues at sentencing and the district court engaged in a thorough discussion of the reasons for the sentence. Although Solano-Briseno has put forward cogent arguments to support her weighing of the § 3553 factors, she has not shown that the district court's weighing of the § 3553 factors was not proper and resulted in an unreasonable sentence. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519-20. Solano-Briseno's sentence 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.