
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carrie Rene CRAFT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10259
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 11, 2009.
    John Preston Bradford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark R. Danielson, Mansfield, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carrie Rene Craft appeals from the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession of counterfeit obligations of the United States. She argues that her sentence was unreasonable because, in light of the mitigating factors at issue in her case, the imposed term of imprisonment was greater than necessary to achieve the objectives set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As she argued in the district court prior to sentencing, Craft asserts on appeal that she merits leniency because she provided assistance to the authorities immediately upon her arrest and because her assistance led to the arrest of her codefendant/husband. The district court explicitly noted before imposing Craft’s sentence that it had considered Craft’s arguments as to mitigating factors, as well as the § 3553(a) factors.

We consider Craft’s argument as to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Also, because Craft’s sentence was imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines range, it is entitled to a rebut-table presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). After reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, we hold that Craft’s appellate arguments fail to establish that her sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     