* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20418

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARCANGEL RAFAEL ALFARO-PICHINTE, also known as Arcangel R PichinteAlfaro

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-451-1

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arcangel Rafael Alfaro-Pichinte (Alfaro), appeals the sentence imposed

after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States. The district

court deviated from the advisory guidelines range of 6-12 months to impose a

non-guideline sentence of 21 months. 

We review sentences for “unreasonableness” in light of the sentencing

considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20418

2

Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 2007). The guidelines provide but

a “rough approximation” of a sentence that will meet all the objectives of

§ 3553(a). See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2464-65 (2007). 

Alfaro contends that the non-guideline sentence was unreasonable because

the district court based it on factors already adequately accounted for by the

guidelines. The district court’s grounds for the variance went beyond the rough

approximation ofthe guidelines to include the dangerous nature of Alfaro’s DWI

and assault crimes, the accelerated pace of his convictions, his lack of maturity

and responsibility despite his age, his acute disregard for the law as shown by

his frequent and repeated illegal entries, the failure of prior lenient sentences

to have a deterrent effect, and Alfaro’s evident inability to control his drinking

while not incarcerated. The court did not base the sentence on factors already

considered by the advisory guidelines. It implicitly viewed the facts in this case

as more egregious than a typical illegal reentry crime by another defendant with

Alfaro’s criminal history score. See Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d at 535. 

Alfaro contends that the sentence was unreasonable because the district

court did not consider a guideline-based departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. We

rejected a contention like this in United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713,

723 (5th Cir. 2007). As in Mejia-Huerta, the non-guideline sentence was not

based solely on under-represented criminal history under § 4A1.3, but “on a

number of § 3553(a) factors, including extensive criminal history, the need to

promote respect for law, deterrence of future criminal conduct, and the need to

protect the public.” Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d at 723. As we emphasized in MejiaHuerta, “§4A1.3 applies only to departures - based on unrepresentative criminal

history” and is by its own terms irrelevant to non-guideline variances. Id. at

723. 

Alfaro contends thatthe district court did not give due consideration to the

75% disparity between the maximum guideline sentence of 12 months and his

sentence of 21 months. Alfaro does not address any specific factor that the court
No. 07-20418

3

found to distinguish him from others who have illegally reentered the United

States and who may have similar criminal history scores. “Citing one case in

which a lower sentence was imposed clearly cannot establish an unwarranted

disparity.” Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d at 536 n.4. Alfaro does not compare his

sentence to that of any other defendant and thus makes only the general and

unremarkable assertion that non-guideline sentences are different than

guideline sentences. 

Alfaro has failed to show that the district court imposed an unreasonable

sentence under any standard of review that might apply to the review of a

sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.