
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dimas ROJAS-DUQUEZ, also known as Alesandro Rojas Dimas-Luquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50998.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 20, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas L. Wright, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Dimas Rojas-Duquez (Rojas) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Rojas argues on appeal that his sentence was unreasonable because (1) the amount of cocaine involved in a prior conviction on which a 16-level increase in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) was based was small, (2) he returned to the United States only to check on his children and to prevent them from being placed in a foster home, and (3) he intended to return to Mexico after checking on his children. He does not challenge the district court’s calculation of his guideline sentencing range.

Because Rojas’s sentence was within a properly calculated guideline range of 57 to 71 months, we infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Rojas has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See id.; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     