
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Pablo VANCHAIK-MOLINAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50896.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 28, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas L. Wright, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Pablo Vanehaik-Molinar (Vanchaik) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He first argues that, because his fraudulently obtained visa had not been revoked at the time he presented it, he did not illegally reenter the United States.

Vanchaik frames his argument as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. A voluntary guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects that occurred prior to the plea and precludes consideration of a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (5th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the argument is waived and the conviction is affirmed.

Vanchaik also argues that his 51-month sentence was unreasonable because he returned to the United States only to shop and he had no intention to remain. This court reviews post-Booker sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). The district court sentenced Vanchaik within a properly calculated guideline range. As such, we infer that the court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines and presume, absent rebuttal, that Vanchaik’s sentence was reasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we also affirm Vanchaik’s sentence.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     