T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 1000 v. ( D . C ol or ado) F RA NC I S CO J AVI E R C AS T OR E NAIB A R R A , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 4 1 3 LT B)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. Fr anci s co J avi erC as t or ena- I barr a pl eade d gui l tyt o cons pi r acyt o l aunder m o n etaryinstrum en ts i n v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 (a)(1)(A )(i ), (a)(1)(B )(i ), and ( h) . T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d hi m t o 87 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a s ent ence atthe t op of the advi s oryU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U SSG ” or “G ui del i nes ”) r ange, and 3 y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. M r . C as t or ena appeal s t he p ro c e d u ra l re a so n a b len e ss o f th a t se n ten c e . W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to- 2-

2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ), a n d , re v ie w in g fo r p la in e rr o r, a ffir m . I . BA CK GR OUND O n Sept ember22, 2004, M r . C as t or ena w as char ged i n a fi ve- count i ndi ctm ent . C ountO ne cha r ged hi m w i th ai di ng and abe t t i ng the count er fei t i ng and pos s es s i on of fr audul enti m m i gr at i on document s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2 and 1546( a) ; C ountT w o char ged hi m w i th ai di ng and abe t t i ng the pos s es s i on w ith in ten t to u se a n d tra n sfe r fiv e o r m o re fa lse id e n tific a tio n d o c u m e n ts in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2 and 1028( a) ( 3) ; C ountT hr ee c har ged hi m w i th ai di ng a n d a b e tti n g th e p o ss e ss io n o f d o c u m e n t-m a k in g im p lem e n ts w ith th e in ten t to us e them for the pr oduct i on of fa l s e i dent i fi cat i on document s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2 and 1028( a) ( 5) ; C ountFourchar ged hi m w i th ai di ng and abe t t i ng t he count er fei t i ng and pos s es s i on of Soci al Secur i tyC ar ds w i th the i nt entt o s el l t hem i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 and 42 U . S. C . § 408( a) ( 7) ( C ) ; and C ountFi ve char ged hi m w i th cons pi r acyt o l aunderm onet aryi ns trum ent s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 (a)(1)(A )(i ), (a)(1)(B )(i ), an d (h). M r . C as t or ena a nd the governm ents ubs equent l yent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en pl ea agr eementunderw hi ch M r . C as t or ena a gr eed t o pl ead gui l tyt o a one- count in fo rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith c o n sp ira c yto lau n d e r m o n e tar yin stru m e n ts in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , ( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) , and ( h) . I n excha nge, t he g o v e rn m e n t a g re e d to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. Pur s uantt o t he pl ea a gr eement , M r . C as t or ena s t i pul at ed t o the conduc t- 3-

u n d e r l y i n g th e c o n s p i r a c yt o l a u n d e rmo n e t a ryi n s tru me n t s c h a r g e . He s peci fi cal l yagr eed thatfr om ar ound A ugus t11, 2003 thr ough N ovember14, 2003, he and s ever al other s cons pi r ed t o m anufa ctur e and s el l count er fei tal i en r egi s tr at i on r ece i ptcar ds , Soci al Secur i tycar ds , and otheri dent i fi cat i on d o cu m en ts. H e f

u rth er a d m itted th at he u sed an d d ir ec ted o thers to u se W estern U ni on m oneytr ans fer s i n or dert o s end and r ece i ve the pr ocee ds fr om t he cons pi r acyt o and fr om eac h other , w i th the i nt entt o conce al t he pr ocee ds and fur therthe cons pi r acy . T he pl ea a gr eementi dent i fi ed M r . C as t or ena a s t he

“ o rg a n iz e r” o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . R e c . v o l. I , d o c . 8 0 , a t 8 . A s evi dence , the pl ea a gr eementi dent i fi ed fourt een s epar at e money tr ans fer s , cumul at i vel yi nvol vi ng $19, 050. M r . C as t or ena c oncede d thathe re c e iv e d th e se tra n sfe rs k n o w in g th e p ro c e e d s c a m e f ro m th e sa le o f

c o u n ter fe it iden ti tyd o cu m en ts an d that m o re tha n o n e h u n d red co u n terfeit do cu m en ts w ere s ol d. O n O ct ober7, 2005, the di s tr i ctcourthel d a pl ea he ar i ng. A tt he hea r i ng, the di s tr i ctcourtor al l yr eci t ed the fa ct s under l y i ng the cons pi r acyt o l aunder m onet aryi ns trum ent s char ge and a s ked M r . C as t or ena s ever al t i m es w hetherhe u n d erstoo d the term s o f th e p lea a g ree m en t. H e a n sw ere d the d istri ct co u rt ’s i nqui r i es aff

i r m at i vel y . Sat i s fi ed thathi s pl ea w as know i ng and vol unt ary , t he d istric t co u rt a c c e p ted th e p lea a g re e m e n t. I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, t he pr obat i on offi cers ubm i t t ed a Pr es ent ence- 4-

I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t ( “ P S R ” ) . T h e P S R c a l c u l a t e d a t o t a l o ffe n s e l e v e l o f t w e n t yfiv e. Italso assig n ed M r. C asto ren a five to tal crim inal h ist o ryp o ints: tw o fo r a 1995 convi ct i on forfr aud i n connec t i on w i th an i m m i gr at i on documentand ai di ng and abe t t i ng, tw o fora 2003 convi ct i on fori l l egal r e- entryfol l ow i ng deport at i on, and one be caus e M r . C as t or ena c om m i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e w hi l e on s upervi s ed r el eas e. M r . C as t or ena di d notr ece i ve anycr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s fort w o other pr i orconvi ct i ons – a 1989 convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of fa l s e i dent i fi cat i on and a 1988 convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o pr oduce a nd tr ans ferfal s e i dent i fi cat i on d o c u m e n ts – d u e to th e ir a g e . S e e U S S G § 4 A 1 .2 (e ). F iv e c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts placed M r. C ast orena i n a cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryof II I. A n adj ust ed o ffen se l evel of tw enty - fi ve and a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I y i el ded a s ugges t ed s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f

7 0 to 8 7 m o n th s . T h e P S R id e n tifie d n o d e p a rt u re is s u e s . To de s c r i be the c on du c tun de r l y i ng M r . Cas t or e na ’ s gu i l typl e a , t he PSR q u o te d d ir e c tly f

ro m th e s tip u la te d fa c ts in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. S e e P S R ¶ 6 -1 2 . I n r egar d t o M r . C as t or ena’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , t he PSR s t at ed thathe w as depor t ed fol l ow i ng hi s 1995 fr aud convi ct i on. I tdi d noti ndi cat e w hetherhe w as depor t ed fo llo w in g h is th re e o th e r p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . I n a s e c t i on e nt i t l e d “ Bac kg r ou nd I nformat i on , ” s e e PSR ¶¶ 13 - 20 , t he PSR s e tfo r th a d d i t i o n a l fa c t s i td e e m e d “ r e l e v a n tt o s e n t e n c i n g , ” i d . ¶ 4 . S p e c i fi c a l l y, thi s s ect i on di s cus s ed a l ar ge- s cal e count er fei tdocumentm anufa ctur erand di s tr i but orknow n as the C as t or ena Fami l yO r gani zat i on ( “C FO ”) . A m ong ot her- 5-

th in g s, th e P S R p ro v id e d th a t (1 ) th e C F O c o n tro lled c o u n ter fe it i d e n tity documentoper at i ons i n num er ous U . S. ci t i es , i ncl udi ng C hi cago, D enver , and Los A ngel es , ( 2) s ever al governm enti nves t i gat i ons i nt o the C FO ’ s oper at i ons c o llec tiv e lyre su lted in th e se izu re o f m ill io n s o f

c o u n ter fe it i d e n tityd o c u m e n ts and the tr acking o f m i l l i on s of do l l ars i n p roceeds from the sal e of those document s , and ( 3) an i nves t i gat i on i n D enverul t i m at el yr es ul t ed i n the arr es tand pr os ecut i on of m or e than thi r ty - fi ve C FO m ember s , i ncl udi ng M r . C as t or ena. T he P S R id e n tifie d M r. C a s to re n a a s o n e o f th e C F O ’s “ le a d e rs .” Id . ¶ ¶ 1 3 , 2 0 . In a n ad d en d u m to the P S R , the p rob ati o n o fficer rec o m m en d ed that M r. C as t or ena r ece i ve a l ow - end G ui del i nes s ent ence of 70- m onths and thr ee y ear s of su p erv ised release . In d o ing so , the p rob ati o n o fficer inc o rrectl ystat ed that M r. C ast orena “h as thr ee pr i orfede r al fel onyconvi ct i ons that , due t o thei rages , do n o t ag g ra v a te h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry .” S u p p . R e c . v o l. II, a t R -2 (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). T h e p rob ati o n o fficer also stat ed , w ith o u t sup p o rtfro m the P S R ’s crim inal h ist o rysec ti o n , that M r. C asto ren a h ad m u lt iple “re m o v als. ” Id . M r. C as t or ena di d notobj ectt o the PSR ’ s fac tual r eci t at i ons orG ui del i ne ca lculati o n s. N o r did h e c o n testan ything co n tai n ed in the p rob ati o n o fficer’s s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n . O n D ece m ber21, 2005, M r . C as t or ena appear ed befor e the di s tr i ctcourtfor s ent enci ng. T he governm entas ked the courtt o i m pos e a hi gh- end G ui del i nes sen tenc e o f 8 7 m o n ths. Fo r sup p o rt , the g o v ern m en t em p h asize d M r. C asto ren a’sI ncl uded among t he § 3553( a) fac t or s ar e ( 1) t he natur e and 1 c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e o ffe n se ; (2 ) th e h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e fe n d a n t; ( 3) the nee d t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he offens e; ( 4) t he nee d fordet err ence ; ( 5) the nee d t o pr ot ectthe publ i c; ( 6) t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange; and ( 7) t he n e e d to a v o id u n w a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a ri tie s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ).

- 6- admi t t ed r ol e as “a l eade r/ or gani zer ” of the C FO and not ed thatthe nat i onw i de i nves t i gat i on i nt o the C FO had r es ul t ed “i n the convi ct i on of overa hundr ed in d iv id u a ls, th e c o n fisc a tio n o f m ill io n s o f

d o llars in a ss e ts, a n d in d e e d th is or gani zat i on has been r es pons i bl e form i l l i ons of count er fei ti dent i tydocument s . ” Re c . v o l . I I , a t4 . I n r e s p o n s e , M r . Ca s t o r e n a ’ s d e fe n s e c o u n s e l r e q u e s t e d a l o wend G ui del i nes s ent ence of 70 m onths . Fors uppor t , defe ns e couns el poi nt ed out thata 70- m onth s ent ence w oul d al r eadybe “s i gni fi cant l yl ongerthan any s ent ence r ece i ved byanyotherco- cons pi r at orori nvol ved i ndi vi dual i n the a c tio n s [ th e g o v e rn m e n t] is d is c u s s in g w ith th e C o u rt .” Id . a t 6 . A ft eradopt i ng t he PSR ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and G ui del i nes cal cul at i ons w i tho ut obj ect i on , the d i stri ctcou rtsent enced M r. C ast orena t o 8 7 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm entand 3 y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. A l though i tacknow l edged a n 87- m onth s ent ence w as “notnece s s ar i l y. . . pr opor t i onat e” t o the s ent ence s i m pos ed on other s as s oci at ed w i th the C FO , the courtconcl uded s ever al otherfac t or s s et for th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) “outw ei gh[ed] the di s par i ty . ” I d. at10. 1 I n di s cus s i ng the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of M r . C as t or ena’ s offe ns e, t he courtobs erved:- 7-

T he br eadt h an d s cope of the cr i m i nal conducti n y ourcas e forw hi ch y ou ar e an or gani zer and l eade r i s s i m pl y br eatht aki ng. T hat , of cour s e, is su m m a riz e d b y g o v e rn m e n t c o u n se l a n d is m o re g ra p h ica llyse t fo rth a n d e x p lain e d in p a ra g ra p h s 1 3 th ro u g h 2 0 o f th e P re se n ten c e R e p o rt. M ill io n s o f

c o u n ter fe it id e n tityd o c u m e n ts, m ill io n s o f d o llars in b e n e fit from these i l l i ci tgains. W e ll, th e p ro d u c tio n o f o n e c o u n ter fe it d o c u m e n t fo r a n im m ig ra n t in to th is c o u n tr yis p ro b a b ly n o b ig d e a l, b u t w e h a v e m illio n s h e re . . . . W h a t is so strik in g a b o u t th e b re a d th a n d sc o p e o f y o u r o rg a n iza tio n is nothi ng l es s than s tr i ki ng att he hea r t of t he s over ei gntyof the U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca. E very n ati on, s t at e, be i tt he U ni t ed St at es of A m e ric a , th e R e p u b lic o f M e x ico , h a s a so v e re ig n rig h t to c o n tr o l its bor der s . A nd w haty ou and y ouror gani zat i on h as [sic] done i s s tr i ke a t th e v e ry h e a rt o f

th a t s o v e re ig n ri g h t o f th is c o u n try . T hati s one rea so n w hyy ouroffe ns e underthe ci r cumst ance s of y our c a s e th a t is b e fo re m e is s o e g re g io u s ly se ri o u s . Id . a t 7 -8 . T ur ni ng t o hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs , the di s tr i ctcour tnot ed th a t M r. C a sto re n a “ re p e a ted lyv io late d th e law o f th is c o u n tryb ye n ter in g th is countryi l l egal l y . ” I d. at9. O s t ens i bl yr el y i ng on t he mi s s t at ementi n the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on, the courtfur therobs erved that M r . C as t or ena ha d “ thr ee p ri o r fe d era l felon ies th at be ca u se o f th eir ag e a ren ’t c o u n te d in c a lc u la tin g u n d e r t h e a d v ic e o f th e G u id e lin e s .” Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S til l fo c u sin g o n M r. C a sto re n a ’s c rim in a l h isto ry , the c o u rt n e x t p ro p o u n d e d th a t [ w] h a ti s a l s o r e ma r k a b l e i s th a t y o u rp r i o rc r i mi n a l c o n d u c ti s th e s a me type of c r i m i nal conductthatbr i ngs y o u her e t oday . T hi s t el l s m e that in term s o f y o u r historyan d ch ara cterist ics y o u h av e a total disrega rd fo r th e law s o f

th is c o u n tryin o rd e r to re a p su b sta n tial fin a n c ial g a in thr ough t he vi ol at i on of thatl aw . A nd pr i or s ent ence s haven’ tdet err ed y o u o n e b it.- 8-

E v e n u n d e r th e a d v ice o f th e se G u id e lin e s it w o u ld n o t b e u n re a so n a b le for m e t o sentence y ou t o a t erm of i m pri sonm ent abov e t he 8 7 m on ths. Id . T h e c o u rt th e n re a so n e d th a t im p o sin g a n 8 7 -m o n th se n ten c e w o u ld pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw , “have a det err enteffecton other s , ” and “ pr ot ect [] t he publ i c and thi s R epubl i c fr om fur thercr i m es . ” I d. at10. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Post - B ooker , w e r evi ew s ent enci ng deci s i ons forr eas onabl enes s . R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2464 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( percur i am). R eas onabl enes s has both pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s w hi ch enc om pas s , r es pect i vel y , “the met hod by w hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed” a nd “the l ength of the s ent ence . ” K r i s t l , 437 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 5 (e m p h a s is o m itte d ). O n a p p e a l, M r. C a sto re n a d e c lin e s to a ttac k th e len g th o f h is 8 7 -m o n th p ri s o n te rm a n d th u s c o n c e d e s h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . In s te a d , h e sty les a p roc ed u ral reaso n ab lene ss ch all en g e, arg u ing that the d istri ct co u rt ’s m ethod of i m pos i ng hi s s ent ence w as fl aw ed bec aus e i tm i s under s t ood the u n co n test ed fa cts set fo rth in the P S R . F o cu sing o n the d istri ct co u rt ’s e x p lan a tio n o f

h is h ig h -e n d G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , h e c o n ten d s th e c o u rt in c o rre c tly bel i eved that( 1) hi s “offens e conduc tencompas s ed ext ens i ve ac t i vi tyt hatpr e-- 9-

dat ed the [c har ged conduc t ] , ” ( 2) “the [PSR ] s how ed a gr eat erpatt ern of i l l egal reentry than i tdi d”; and ( 3) he “ha d thr ee fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s n o t co u n ted d u e to thei rage, r atherthan two . ” A p lt ’s B r. at 2 (e m p h asis ad d ed ). B eca us e M r . C as t or ena di d notcal l t hes e al l eged e rr or s t o the di s tr i ct court ’ s at t ent i on atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, w e r evi ew foronl ypl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. R ui z- T err aza s , 477 F. 3d 1196, 1199 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . ForM r . C as t or ena to p re v a il u n d e r th is s tan d a rd , h e m u st e sta b lish th e re is (1 ) “ e rro r,” ( 2 ) “ th a t is pl a i n, ” a nd ( 3) “ tha ta ffe c t s s ub s t a nt i a l r i gh t s . ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. O l a no , 50 7 U. S. 725, 732 ( 1993) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . I f al l t hr ee condi t i ons ar e s at i s fi ed, w e mayexer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o not i ce the err or , but onl yi f ( 4) the err or“s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte ra tio n o m itte d ). A p p ly ing this stri n g en t st an d ard , w e a d d ress the three erro rs all eg ed b yM r. C a s to re n a in tu rn . A . O F F ENS E C ONDUCT M r . C as t or ena f

i r s tar gues t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n as s es s i ng the s er i ous nes s of the conduc tunder l y i ng hi s gui l typl ea t o cons pi r acyt o l aunder m onet aryi ns trum ent s becaus e i t“mi s t akenl yconfl at ed” thatconductw i th the u n c o n te s te d fa c ts s e t fo rt h in th e “ B a c k g ro u n d In fo rm a tio n ” s e c tio n o f th e P S R . A p lt’s B r. at 2 3 . A s e v id e n c e o f th is a lleg e d e rro r, M r. C a sto re n a p o in ts o u t, among ot herthi ngs , thateven though hi s offe ns e conduc tonl yi nvol ved- 10-

a p p ro x im a tely$ 1 9 ,0 0 0 f ro m th e sa le o f

o n e h u n d re d o r m o re c o u n ter fe it document s , t he di s tr i ctcourts t at ed ats ent enci ng that“[t ] he br eadth and s cope of the cr i m i nal conducti n your case fo r w h ich y o u a re a n o rg a n ize r is s im p ly br eatht aki ng” bec aus e i ti nvol ved “[ m ] i l l i on s o f c o u n ter fe it i d e n tityd o c u m e n ts [a n d ] m i l l i ons o f

d o llars in b e n e fit fro m th e se ill icit g a in s.” R e c . v o l. II, a t 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W hi l e the l anguage empl oy ed bythe di s tr i ctcour tdur i ng s ent enci ng w as p e rh a p s im p re c ise , w e fin d M r. C a sto re n a ’s a lleg a tio n o f e rro r fa r-fe tch e d . F irst, the re co rd in d icates the co u rtw as w ell -aw are o f th e fac ts un d erly ing M r. C as t or ena’ s gui l typl ea. I ndeed, the courtr ead them al oud atthe pl ea he ar i ng, w h ich o cc u rred less than three m o n ths b efo re the sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . M o reo v er, just prior to m ak ing the a ll eg ed lyerro n eo u s statem en ts, the d istri ct co u rt expl i ci t l yr efe r ence d the par agr aphs compri s i ng the PSR ’ s “B ackgr ound In fo rm a tio n ” se c tio n . S e e R e c . v o l. II, a t 7 . B e c a u se th is s e c tio n is c lea rlyse to ff fro m the P S R ’s recit ati o n o f th e o ffen se c o n d u ct, itis ev iden t t o u s the co u rt r efe rr ed t o t he uncont es t ed fa ct s ther ei n as unchar ged, r el evantconductj us t i fy i ng M r . C as t or ena’ s hi gh- end G ui del i nes s ent ence . T hi s i s undi s put edl ypr oper . See U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez- Fel i x, 450 F. 3d 1117, 1131 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “I n the aft erm ath of B ooker , w e have r out i nel yperm i t t ed a di s tr i ctcour tt o enhanc e a d e fe n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e u s i n g u n c h a r g e d c o n d u c tp r o v e n t o th e c o u r tb y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e .” ).- 11-

A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude ther e w as no err orand nee d notaddr es s the rem ai ning disj un ct i ve p l ai n err or el em ents . B . U N LA W FU L E NTRI ES M r . C as t or ena ne xtar gues t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n s t at i ng thathi s 87- m onth s ent ence w as j us t i fi ed, i n par t , beca us e he ha d “ re p e a ted ly vi ol at ed the l aw o f th i s c o u n tr y b y ent er i ngth is c o u n tryill e g a lly .” R e c . v o l. II, a t 9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A lth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t co n c e rn e d ill e g a l entr i es , M r. Cas t or e na pr e mi s e s thi s c ha l l e ng e on t he l a c k o f e xp l i c i ti nformat i on i n the PSR r egar di ng the re m o v a l act i ons t aken byt he U ni t ed St at es – i f any– fol l ow i ng th re e o f h is fo u r p rio r c o n v ictio n s. H e e m p h a siz e s th a t th e P S R , in d isc u ss in g h is cr i m i nal hi s t ory , onl ypr ovi des thathe w as depor t ed af t erhi s 1995 fr aud convi ct i on; i tdoes noti ndi cat e w hetherhe w as r emoved aft erhi s 1988, 1989, and 2 0 0 3 c o n v ic tio n s . D es pi t e the l ack of

s peci fi c i nform at i on r egar di ng re m o v a ls , t he undi s put ed fa c t s i n th e P S R s u g g e s tth a tM r . C a s t o r e n a , a n i l l e g a l a l i e n , u n l a w f u l l y ent er ed th e c o u n trya t lea st th re e tim e s: (1 ) w h e n h e “ first e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 1982, ” PSR ¶ 70; ( 2) pr i ort o hi s 1995 fr aud convi ct i on as he admi t t ed

“ re tu rn [ in g ] to M e x ico ” fo r a n u n sp e c ified p e rio d o f tim e a f ter “ re sid [ in g ]in N or thr i dge, C al i forni a, fr om 1990 t o 1993, ” i d. ; and ( 3) befor e hi s 2003 convi ct i on fori l l egal r eentr yfol l ow i ng deport at i on. T hes e fa ct s ar e more t han s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s t a t e m e n tt h a tM r . C a s t o r e n a “ r e p e a t e d l y”- 12-

ent er ed the countr y i l l egal l y . See 13 O xfor d E ngl i s h D i ct i onary635 ( 2d ed. 1 9 8 9 ) ( re p e a te d ly: “ M o re th a n o n c e , a g a in a n d a g a in , f re q u e n tly” ). W e ther efor e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed no err orand, as above, d o n o t m o v e b e y o n d th e fir s t p la in e rr o r r e v ie w p ro n g . C . P RI OR C ON VI C TI ON S Fi nal l y , M r . C as t or ena a s s er t s t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n s t at i ng hi s 87- m onth s ent ence w as j us t i fi ed, i n par t , beca us e he ha d thr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons u n a c c o u n ted fo r in h is c rim in a l h isto rysc o re . B e c a u se M r. C a sto re n a h a d o n ly tw o s uch convi ct i ons , i ti s cl earthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed and thats uch err orw as p lai n . W e thu s turn to the thir d p ron g o f p lai n erro r rev iew , ask ing w h ethe r M r. C a s to re n a h a s s h o w n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e rr o r a ffe c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . “Foran err ort o have a ffe ct ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , ‘ the err orm us thave be en p rejud ici al: Itm u st ha v e a ffec ted th e o u tcom e o f th e d istri ct co u rtp roc ee d ing s. ’” U ni t ed St at es v. D aze y , 403 F. 3d 1147, 1175 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng O l ano, 507 U . S . at72 5). W e hav e held that an err or i s prej ud i ci al w hen t here i s a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty ” thatthe di s tr i ctcourtw oul d have i m pos ed a mor e l eni ent sen tenc e h ad itn o t m ad e the erro r. Id. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h ere is no su ch p rob ab il ityh ere . A t sen tenc ing , the d istri ct co u rt s uppor t ed i t s i m pos i t i on of a hi gh- end G ui del i nes s ent ence w i th a l i t anyof r eas ons that , acc or di ng t o t he court , coul d have j us t i fi ed a “ a t erm of im p riso n m e n t a b o v e . . . 87 m ont hs . ” R ec. vol . I I , at9 ( emphasi s added) . D ur i ng- 13-

i t s di s cus s i on of thes e r eas ons , the courtpl ace d r el at i vel yl i t t l e emphas i s on the num ber o f

c o n v ic tio n s u n a c c o u n te d fo r i n M r. C a s to re n a ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry sc o re . Iti nst ead focu sed on t he “eg regi ou sl yser i ou s” nature of M r. C ast orena’s offense co n d u ct an d h is ad m itted ro le i n the C F O . Id. at 8. E v en w h en d iscu ssing M r. C a sto re n a ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n s, th e c o u rt d id n o t d w e ll o n th e ir n u m b e r b u t th e ir n ature . Ind ee d , the c o u rtstat ed that itw as “ rem ark ab le” tha t M r. C asto ren a’s o ffe n se c o n d u c t w a s o f th e “ sa m e typ e ” a s th e c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g se v e ra l o f h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s a n d th a t th is d e m o n stra ted “ a to tal d isre g a rd fo r th e law s o f th is countryi n or dert o r eap s ubs t ant i al fi nanci al gai n thr ough the vi ol at i on of that law .” Id . at 9 . T h e c o u rt f u rth e r re m a rk e d th a t an 8 7 -m o n th se n ten c e w o u ld pr ot ectthe publ i c bec aus e M r . C as t or ena’ s r eci di vi s m i ndi cat ed thathe had “ no in c lin a tio n to c o m p o rt [ h is ] c o n d u c t w ith th e la w o f th is c o u n tr y .” Id . a t 1 0 . In lig h t o f

th e se c o m p e lli n g sta tem e n ts, th e re is (a t m o st) a m in isc u le l i kel i hood t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtw oul d have i m pos ed a l es s ers ent ence had i tbeen aw ar e thatM r . C as t or ena ha d tw o, r atherthan thr ee, convi ct i ons unacc ount ed for i n hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e. W e ther efor e fi nd thatM r . C as t or ena ha s not sa tisfied h is b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s e rro r a ffe c ted h is subst anti al ri gh t s so as t o sat i sfythe thi rd pl ai n err or prong . E ven assum i ng this e rro r so m e h o w a ffe c ted M r. C a sto re n a ’s s u b sta n tial rig h ts, w e c a n n o t sa yit “s er i ous l yaffect [s ] the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ” underthe fourth pl ai n err orpr ong. O l ano, 507 U . S. at732 ( ci t at i on- 14-

an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o r th e re a so n s d e taile d a b o v e , the se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e d istric t co u rt is AF F I RMED . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge