
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul ARIAS-RUBIO, also known as Raul Rubio-Arias, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50467
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 15, 2011.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raul Arias-Rubio (Arias) appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for importing marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that application of the career offender enhancement overstated the seriousness of his offense, and that his background, age, medical conditions, and family responsibilities warranted a downward variance.

We review Arias’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of discretion because he preserved this issue before the district court. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). Because the district court imposed a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable, and this court “will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Arias’s assertions are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1930, 176 L.Ed.2d 397 (2010); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     