* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. 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, alsoknown 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 ( A lfaro), appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded gui lty 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 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(a). U nited States v. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 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). Alfaroc ontends 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 ofAlfaro’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 U nited 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. I d. at 723. Alfarocontends that thedistrict court did not givedueconsideration to the 75% disparity between the maximum guideline sentence of 12 months and his sentence of21 months. Alfaro does not address any specific factor that the courtNo. 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 unremarkabl e 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 revi ew that might apply to the review of a sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.