Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto ALANIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 262 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 07-10735
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto ALANIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 579–579

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto ALANIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10735
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 18, 2008.
Lisa J. Miller, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, John Macintyre Nicholson, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Alaniz appeals the 33-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable. Specifically, Alaniz contends that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, failed to articulate adequate reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for the sentence imposed, and treated the guidelines as mandatory.
Because the sentence Alaniz received fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). The district court's proper consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is inferred. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Alaniz has not overcome the presumption of correctness attached to his sentence.
The district court's judgment is affirmed. The Government's motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.