
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonso LOPEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40133.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 11, 2008.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendantr-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    
      ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    
   PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment in United States v. Lopez-Morales, 256 Fed.Appx. 726 (2007), and remanded this matter for further consideration in the light of Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Lopez-Morales v. United States, -U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2933, 171 L.Ed.2d 862 (2008).

In our first decision, we rejected Lopez’ assertions that the district court had erroneously applied a presumption of reasonableness to the advisory guidelines sentencing range and had failed to give adequate weight to the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We held: that “[t]he district court’s remarks at sentencing show that Lopez’s sentence was the result of a balancing of the proper factors, including the guidelines and the considerations of § 3553(a)”; and that the presumption-of-reasonableness issue, as conceded by Lopez, was foreclosed by Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). 256 Fed.Appx. at 726.

In Gall, the Supreme Court held: courts of appeals may not use a rigid, mathematical formula in reviewing a district court’s decision to depart from the properly-calculated guidelines sentencing range, nor may they require a district court to show extraordinary circumstances to depart from that range. 128 S.Ct. at 595. The Court further held: district court sentencing decisions are subject to abuse-of-diseretion review; and courts of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines sentencing range. Id. at 597.

Subsequent to remand, the parties were instructed to file briefs addressing the impact, if any, of Gall on this matter. Lopez essentially repeats his original contentions that the district court applied an erroneous presumption of reasonableness to the guidelines sentencing range, an assertion we have already rejected and that is unaffected by Gall Lopez also appears to contend that the district court’s reliance on the eontrolled-sub-stance guidelines was error because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). In any event, that issue was not raised in Lopez’ appeal here and is not within the scope of the remand from the Supreme Court.

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.
     