P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40780 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. ANG ELC AS T RO

- NEP OMUNCENO D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- C R
- 193- 1 B e fo r e J O L LY , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A n gelC astr o- N epom u n ceno ( C astr o) app eal s hi s 24- m on t h sentence f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea to i l l egal reentry. H e argu es t h at th e di st ri ctcourt vi o l at e d F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(i) ( 3) (B ) w h e n it d i d n otm ak e a speci f i c r u l i n g or fi n d i n g o n h i s req u est for a d ow n w a rdadj u s tm en t f or ti m e sp en t i n state c u s t o d y . C a s t r o fa il e dto o bje c ta ts e n t e n c in gto th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s n on com p l i a n ce w i th R u l e 32 . W e review for p l a i n erro r. S e eUni t e d S t at e s v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40780

2 R ey na , 358 F . 3d344 , 349
- 50 (5t h C i r. 200 4) ( en ban c) . B ecau se t h e di st ri ctcourt ad opted t h e presentence r e p o rt (P S R ) an d h aving consi dered the recor d as a w h ole, w e a re n ot l eft to seco n dgu ess the ba sis for t h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s refu sa lto d e p a r t d o w n w a r d . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Carreon , 11 F. 3d 12 25 , 12 31 ( 5t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). C astr o argu es t h at th e di st ri ct c o u rt, i n fai l i n g t o rul e on h i s m ot i on f or dow n w ard d epa rt u re and i n not adequa t e ly e xp l aini ng thebasi s f or t h e sentence, co m m itted a“sig n ifi ca n t p ro ce d u ra l err o r.” A n a p p e lla te co u rt’s re v iew of a s e nt e nc e m us t s t ar t w i t h whet he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o m m i t t e d a ny “ s i gnif i c ant pr o c e dur ale r r o r , suc h a s fail i ng t o c al c ul at e (o ri m pr o pe r l y c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e , t r e at i ng t he G ui de l i ne s a s m and at o r y, fail i ng t o c o ns i de rt he 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) fact ors, sel ect i n g a sentence based on cl earl y erroneou s fact s, or faili n g to ad eq u a tel y exp l a i n th e cho sen sen ten ce.” G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S . C t . 586 , 597 ( 200 7) . B ecau se C astr o di d not rai se t h i s argu m en ti n t h e di st ri ct c o u r t, r e v ie w is lim ite d to p la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. I zagu i rre - L osoya , 219 F .3d 4 3 7 , 4 4 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Ats e nt e nc i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts pe c i f i c all y s t at e d t hati tc o ns i de r e d t he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s a nd thatas e n t e nc e w i t hi n t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e s at i s f i e d t he o bje c tiv e s o f § 3 5 5 3 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e dn o p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r . S ee R ita v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 (20 0 7 ). W e are w i t h ou tj u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der C astr o’ s argum en ttha tthe d i st ri ct c o ur te r r e d i n de nyi ng hi s m o t i o n f o rado w nw ar d depa rt ur e a s t he r e i s no i n di cat i on i n t h e rec ord t h at the di st ri ctcourtw as un der t h e m i st ak en im p r e s s io n th a t itco u ld n o t d e p a r t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez , 457 F. 3d 416 , 424 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) . W e ret ai n j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew “ w h et h er t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s i m posi t i on of a gu i del i n e sentence i n st eadof a non - gu i del i n e sentence w a s rea son a b l e.” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ni konov a , 4 8 0 F .3 d3 7 1 , 3 7 5 (5 th C ir .), ce rt. d enie d , 128 S. C t . 163 ( 200 7) . B ecau se C astr o di d n otobj ecti n t h e di st ri ctcourtN o. 08- 40780

3 to th e u n r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e , re v ie w is fo rp l a in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez- V

elasqu ez , 5 2 6 F .3d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). If t h e sentenci n g j u dg e i m poses a sentence w i t h i n a properl y -ca lcu l ated gu i del i n es r an ge, t h e senten ce is enti t l ed to a presu m pti on of reasonab l en ess. S ee R ita , 127 S . C t . at 246 2. T h e di st ri ct court i m posed a sentence at th e bott om of t he pr ope r l y- c al c ul at ed g ui del i n es range af t erc ons i der i ng t he § 3553( a) fact ors. C as t r o ha s fail e d t o s ho w t hatt he s e nt e nc e i s unr e as o nab l e . The s e nt e nc e i s a f

f i r m e d. AF F I RMED.