UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose RAMIREZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant, 490 F. App'x 636

PER CURIAM: Jose Ramirez-Medina pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry following deportation. The district court imposed a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Ramirez-Medina argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence based on its personal opinion that such a sentence was warranted. The 36-month sentence challenged by Ramirez-Medina was the result of an upward variance from the Guidelines. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008). Following United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), our review of sentences is for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2005). The Government contends that Ramirez-Medina did not preserve the specific argument he now raises on appeal and that plain error review thus applies. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009).

We need not decide the appropriate standard of review because, as explained below, the sentence is reasonable under either plain error review or the abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.2008). The record indicates that the district court properly considered the § 3553(

a) factors. The 36-month sentence reflected the seriousness of Ramirez-Medina’s offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to provide just punishment, and the need to protect the public from future crimes. The sentence imposed “was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). 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R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.