Roberto Alaniz appeals the 33-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable. Specifically, Alaniz contends that the district court failed to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, failed to articulate adequate reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for the sentence imposed, and treated the guidelines as mandatory.

Because the sentence Alaniz received fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s proper consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is inferred. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Alaniz has not overcome the presumption of correctness attached to his sentence.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.