
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51129
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 29, 2009.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendanfi-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importing a quantity of marijuana greater than 50 kilograms and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana greater than 50 kilograms. On appeal,.Rodriguez argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 328, 172 L.Ed.2d 236 (2008).

The district court articulated reasons for imposing a sentence within the applicable guideline range. Statements at Rodriguez’s sentencing hearing indicate that the district court considered the history and characteristics of Rodriguez and determined that the 151-month sentence was necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to provide Rodriguez with needed vocational training, to provide Rodriguez with drug abuse treatment, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment and deterrence from further crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     