UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rene ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant, 225 F. App'x 321

PER CURIAM: Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Rene Romero preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Romero concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness.

Romero also preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because of the court’s refusal to consider his postsentencing rehabilitation. Romero concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir.2006), which held that “Booker does not give sentencing courts the discretion to impose a non-Guideline sentence based on the courts’ disagreement with Congressional and Sentencing Commission policy.” The Government’s motion for

summary affir-manee is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).