
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto ZAMORA Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50855
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 28, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roberto Zamora, Jr., appeals the 210-month term of imprisonment and five-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. Zamora argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that sentence is not necessary to protect the public or to prevent him from committing future crimes because of his age, health, and family responsibilities.

The district court committed no significant procedural error as it properly calculated the applicable guidelines range, allowed the parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, and implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. Where, as here, the district court imposed a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006); see also Rita v. United States, —- u.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Zamora has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion or that the sentence is unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     