
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50821
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 24, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAYLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Danny Ortiz filed a notice of appeal from “the Judgment in the Criminal Case and the sentence pronounced in open court on June 1, 2006.” Although he designated only case number EP-06-CR-91-PRM in his notice of appeal, we liberally construe it to include EP-04-CR-1411-PRM, which concerns the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. See Trust Co. Bank v. United States Gyp sum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1148 (5th Cir. 1992).

Ortiz argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences is unreasonable. He contends that the district court incorrectly weighed the relevant sentencing factors and that his term of imprisonment was greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of sentencing. He further reasons that his 70-month combined sentence is outside the advisory sentencing guideline range.

The record reflects that the court properly considered the guidelines, the 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) factors, and Ortiz’s arguments in favor of mitigation when it imposed his sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). Furthermore, the consecutive nature of Ortiz’s sentence is specifically permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. See Gonzalez, 250 F.3d at 925-29. Thus, the sentence is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114,120 (5th Cir.2005), cert, denied, 547 U.S. 1083, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Accordingly, the judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     