
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando JIMENEZ-OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50514
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 17, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark Randolph Stelmach, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alberto Manuel Ramon, Esq., Trial Attorney, Law Office of Alberto M. Ramon, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Jimenez-Orozco (Jimenez) appeals from his 57-month sentence for illegal reentry; his sentence fell at the bottom of the guidelines range. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its reasons for denying his request for a below-guidelines sentence.

Because Jimenez did not object to his sentence in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). The district court’s comments indicate that it considered Jimenez’s arguments but also took into account his history and the need to deter him from committing further crimes against the public in the future. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court was not required .to engage in “robotic incantations that each statutory factor has been considered.” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The within-guidelines sentence is presumed to be substantively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). This court has previously affirmed as substantively reasonable sentences within the guidelines range in other illegal reentry cases when defendants raised similar arguments for below-guidelines sentences. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.2008).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     