UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bonafacio RIVERA-MAGANA, a/k/a Bonasacio Magano Rivera, a/k/a Dominges Morales Rodolfo, Defendant-Appellant, 177 F. App'x 358

PER CURIAM: Bonafacio Rivera-Magana pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Rivera-Magana appeals, arguing that his twenty-seven month sentence was unreasonable when considered in light of all the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). Finding no error, we affirm. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.

Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.2005). However, in determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). Id. If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.2006). Here, Rivera-Magana’s adjusted offense level was seventeen and the district court reduced his criminal history category from III to II.

Rivera-Magana’s twenty-seven month sentence was within the guideline range of twenty-seven to thirty-three months, and well within the statutory maximum of twenty years. Although RiveraMagana contends that the district court did not adequately consider the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), the court heard argument about Rivera-Magana’s family circumstances, and the court stated it had considered the nature and circumstances of the offense. The court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” United States v. Johnson, — F.3d —, 2006 WL 893594, *5 (4th Cir. Apr.7, 2006).

Because the record demonstrates the court’s consideration of § 3553(a), we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Rivera-Magana’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED