
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Angel VILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50506
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 25, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US 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 JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Miguel Angel Villa appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villa argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because his illegal reentry offense did not pose a danger to the public, he only returned to the United States in order to retrieve personal effects from his girlfriend, who had been murdered, and the additional criminal history points that he received for having committed this offense while on supervised release from his prior illegal reentry offense rendered the advisory Guidelines range too high, particularly in light of the 11-month sentence that he received for the revocation of his supervised release.

We review the sentence imposed by the district court for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Villa does not contend that the district court erred in calculating the advisory guidelines range. Where the district court exercises its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Here, the record reflects that the district court considered Villa’s arguments, the recommendations of the presentence report, the applicable guidelines range, and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Villa has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory guidelines range. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2470.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     