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 th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30864 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. CI CE RO LO M O N T M YE RS 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 ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R
- 102- 1 B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IAM: * C i cero L om on tM yers app eal s hi s s en t en ce f oll o w i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea co n v iction for a rm e d ro b b e ry o f a p o st office in v iola tion o f 18 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 4 (a). Ats e nt e nc i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde pa r t e d up w ar dly f r o m M ye r s ’ s c al c ul at ed gui deli nes i m pri so nm entr ange o f 84 t o 105 m ont hs i n pri so n and i m pos ed a 144- m on t h sentence pu rsuan tt o U . S . S . G . 4A1 . 3( a) ( 1) . M yers argues t h at th e di st ri ct court’ s s en t en ce i s bot h procedu ral ly an d su bstantivel y u n reasona bl e. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30864

2 Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 220 ( 200 5) , sentences are r e v i e we df

o rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n li g h to f t h e s e n t e nc i ng fac t o r s i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3d5 1 1 , 5 1 9 -2 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). P u rsuan tt o G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S . C t . 586 , 596
- 97 (2007), t h i s c ou rtm u st fir s t d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis p r o c e d u r a llys o u n d . A p roce d u ra lerro r occu rs w h en the d i stri ct cou rt m i sca l cu l a tes or fa i l s to calcu l a te t h e proper gu i del i n es r an ge; t reat s th e G u i del i n es as m an da t ory; i m poses a sen ten ce ba sed on cl ea rl y e rron eo u s fa cts; fa i l s to con siderthe fa ctors se t f orth i n § 3553 ( a) ; or fai l s t o a deq u ately exp l ai n it s c h osen sen t en ce oran y dev i ati on fr o m th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . G a ll , 128 S. C t . at597. M yer s ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our tdi d notpr ovi de ade quat e no t i c e, as r e quir e d b y Rul e 3 2(h) of t he Fe de r alRul e s o f Cr i m i nalPr o c e dur e , o f it s i nt e nt to u p w a r d l yd e p a r t b a s e du p o n th e s e r io u s n e s s o f M y e r s ’ s o ffe n s e a n dh is con ti n u edi n vo lve m en t i n cri m e ev en after n u m ero u s ep i sod es o f i m p ri son m en t. M y e r s ra is e s th e n o tic e is s u e fo r th e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l a n d c o n c e d e s th a t itis s u bje c t t o p la in e r r o rre v ie w . S e e Un ite d S ta te s v . L o p ez -V e la s q u ez, 526 F. 3d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 5 (2 0 0 8 ) . T h i s a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it . I n im p o s in gth e a c tu a l s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c ific a lly as se r t ed thatthe s ent enc e w as an upw ar d depar t ure purs uant t o § 4A 1. 3( a) ( 2) bas e d o n M yers’ s un der- represented cr i m i n alhi st ory an d the l i kelih ood of r e c id iv is m . A r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r tp r o p e r ly p r o v id e dM y e r s w ith a d v a n c e dn o tic e o f i ts in te n t t o u p w a r d lyd e p a r t fo rth is s pe c if i cr e as o n. M ye r s a l s o c o nt e nds t hat t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tg ivea de qua t e w e i ght t o hi s l on g h i st ory of drugabu se as an ap p ro p ri ate c on si derati on un der § 3 553( a) . At t he s ent enc i ng hear i ng, t he di st r i c t co urtpr ovi ded M yer s an o p p o r tu n ityto a r g u e th a t h is s u b s t a n c ea b u s e p r o b le m re q u ir e dle n ie n c yin d eterm i n i n g a n ap p rop ri a te sen ten ce. T h u s, the distr ic t cou rt’ s d ecisi on toN o. 08- 30864

3 i m pose an u pw ard depa rt u re desp i t e kn ow l edg e of M yers’ s dru g abu se probl em c o n s tit u te s a n im p lic it r eje c tio n o f th e a r g u m e n t. Se eUni t e d S t at e sv . He r r e raG ard u n o, 5 1 9 F .3d5 2 6 , 5 3 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). R eason ableness r evi ew , i n the contextof a gu i del i n es depa rt u re, requi res t hi s c o ur tt o e va l uat e bo t h t he de c i s i o n t o upwar dly de pa r ta nd the e xt e nto f t he d e p a r tu r e fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un itedS ta tes v. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 442 F. 3d 3 4 5 , 3 4 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A n u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e is n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n if t h e reasons for t h e dep art u re adva n ce th e obj ect ives of § 3553 ( a) ( 2) an d are j u s t i f i e db yth e p a r tic u la rfa c ts o f th e ca s e . I d. I n t he i ns t ant c as e , i n l i gh tof t h e un der- representat i on of M yers’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory, t h e nu m ber an d n ature of h i s pri or of

fen ses, an d the i n creasi n g seri ou sness of hi s of fe n se s, th e di st ri ct c o u r t d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in ga n u p w a r dd e p a r tu r e . S e eid . at 3 4 7 -4 8 . M o r e o ve r , a l t ho ught he 1 44 - m o nt h s e nt e nc e i m po s e d was 3 9 m o nt hs h i gh er t h an t h e ad vi sory gu i del i n es m axim u m of 105 m o n th s, a f t er G a ll , th is court h as af

f i rm e d m uc h gr e at e rupwar d d e pa rt ur e so rno n- gui deli n es s en t en ces. S ee , e . g ., He r r e ra- G ar duno , 519 F . 3 d at530- 32 ( af f i r m i ng as r eas onabl e a60- m ont h se nt enc e i m pos ed w her e the advi so r y gui deli nes r ange w a s 21 t o 2 7 m o n th s inp r is o n ); Z u n ig a -Per a lta , 442 F . 3dat 346
- 48 (uph ol di n g a dep art u re o f a lm o s ttw ic e th e to p o f t h e a d v is o r yg u id e li n e s r a n g e b a s e do n t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s extensive cri m i n alhi st ory) . M yers h as n ot show n t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti m posed a s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . S eeG a ll , 128 S. C t . at 597. Acc or di ngl y, t h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.