
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Garza FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41702
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 3, 2007.
    Heather Harris Rattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Ralph Johnston Hagood, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hector Garza Flores appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute gamma hydroxybutrate, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, methamphetamine, and marijuana. The Government has moved for summary affirmance. (The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary).

Flores maintains his 210-month Guidelines sentence violates United, States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and is unreasonable. The presumption of reasonableness afforded a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is consistent with Booker. See Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The record reflects the district court considered Flores’ claims, the presentence investigation report’s recommendations, the applicable Guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Because the district court exercised its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable, and we may infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2462-70; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1056, 126 S.Ct. 718, 163 L.Ed.2d 615 (2005).

SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED; JUDGMENT 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     