
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-31284
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 27, 2007.
    Sonia Peters Cassidy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stephen A. Glassell, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Fernando Herrera pleaded guilty of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and was sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it treated the guideline range as the presumptively appropriate sentence and placed little, if any, weight on the other sentencing factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record does not support that contention.

Herrera contends that affording a presumption of reasonableness to his sentence merely because it is within the guideline range is a violation of the Sixth Amendment. That argument is foreclosed by Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Herrera claims his sentence is unreasonable. The record shows that the district court gave adequate, proper reasons for its choice of a sentence within the pertinent guideline range. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (May 21, 2007) (No. 06-11834); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     