Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Hector Ricardo Escobedo, also known as Ricardo Escobedo

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-51671
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HECTOR RICARDO ESCOBEDO, also known as Ricardo Escobedo
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-180-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hector Ricardo Escobedo appeals the 18-month prison term imposed
following his conviction of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States.
Escobedo argues that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the district court improperly weighted
certain sentencing factors and failed to give an adequate explanation for its
choice of sentence. He also challenges this court’s application of a rebuttable

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-51671
2
presumption of reasonableness to a sentence, such as his, that falls within the
defendant’s guidelines range.
These arguments lack merit. The record shows that the district court gave
adequate, proper reasons for its choice of a sentence within the pertinent
guidelines range. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.
2007), petition for cert. filed (May 21, 2007) (06-11834); United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828 (2005). Escobedo’s
challenge to the presumption of reasonableness is unavailing. See Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554
(5th Cir. 2006).
Escobedo has shown no error in the judgment of the district court.
Consequently, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
the Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --