Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MERAZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 219 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 06-50382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MERAZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardino MERAZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50382
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernardino Meraz-Mejia (Meraz) appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to transporting aliens. The court pretermits the issues whether Meraz adequately briefed a challenge to his appeal waiver and whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).
Meraz argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the sentence was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court's statements at sentencing in response to Meraz's several arguments show that the court was aware of the advisory nature of the Guidelines and that it adequately considered § 3553(a)'s factors when it sentenced Meraz. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Moreover, Meraz's sentence, which was within the applicable guidelines range, is presumed to be reasonable, and does not present "rare" circumstances that would warrant a conclusion that it is unreasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.