Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20344 Su m m ar yC al 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. JU LIO D E LG A D O

- LO YA , al so know n as Jul i o Edw ar d D el gado, al so know n as Jul i o D e l ga do Lo ya , a l s o kno w n a s J ul i o D e l ga do , a l s o known as J ul i o Eduar do D e lg a d o -L o y a , 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 ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R
- 561- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Ju l i o D el gad o- L oya ( D el gad o) app eal s th e 77-m on t h sentence i m posed f o l l o w i ng hi s guil t y- pl e a c o nvi c t i o n f o r i l l e ga l r e e nt r y f o l l o w i n g pre vi o us depor t at i on. H e a r gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our tc om m i t t ed s i gni f i c antpr oc edur al e r r o rb y i m po s i ng a s e nt e nc e w i t hi n t he pe r t i ne ntg ui de l i ne s r ang e w i t ho ut United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20344 Document: 00511063887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20344

2 g ivin gsp e cific re a so n s fo r r ejec tin gh is n o n friv o lou s a rg u m e n ts in fa v o r o f a sentence bel ow t h i s r an ge. H e requests t h i s c ou rtt o vacate hi s s en t en ce. W e r e vi e w D e l ga do ’ s ar gum e ntfo rpl ai n er r o rbe c aus e he r ai s e s i tfo rt he fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Mond ragon- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 357, 3 6 1 ( 5 th C ir .), c e r t . de ni e d, 13 0 S. Ct . 1 92 ( 20 09 ) . To s ho w pl ai n e r r o r , D e l ga do m u s t s h o w a fo r fe ite de r r o rth a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c ts h is sub st a n tia l righ t s. See P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 9 (20 0 9 ). I f he m ak e s suc h a sho w i ng, t hi s co ur thas t he di s c r e t i o n t o co r r e c tt he er r o rb ut w ill d o s o o n lyif th e e r r o rs u b s ta n tia llya ffe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. A r e vi e w o f

t he r e c or d d o e s no ts upp o r tD e l ga do ’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tfai l e d t o c o ns i de r hi s ar gum e nt s f o ral o w e rs e nt e nc e . I n fac t , “ t he f u l lsentenci n g recor d r eveals t h e di st ri ct court’ s reasons f or t h e chosen sen t en ce a n d a l l ow s for eff

ective rev i ew bythis cou rt. ” Un itedS ta tes v. B o n illa , 524 F. 3d 6 4 7 , 6 5 7 -5 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 29 S. Ct . 9 04 ( 200 9) . E ven i f t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason s w ere i n ad equ ate an d c on st i t u t ed error , D el gad o cann ot sh ow tha t a m ore ex ten sive ex p l a n a ti on w ou l dh a ve ch a n ge dh i s 77 -m o n th s e n te n c e . S e eMo n d r ago n -S a n tiago , 56 4 F. 3da t3 65 . Ac c o r di ngly, t he ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F I R M E D . Se ei d. ; seealso G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s, 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 3 (20 0 7 ). Case: 09-20344 Document: 00511063887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010