Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50681 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. M AN U EL SALA S- VE LA SQ U EZ , 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 th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 09- C R - 835- 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 IA M: * M an u elSa l as- V el asqu ez ( S al as) app eal s t h e 57-m on t h sentence i m posed inco n n e ctio n w ith h is g u il ty -p lea co n v iction forilleg a l ree n tryinv iola tion of 8 U . S . C . § 1326 . Salas argu es t h at hi s s en t en ce i s great er than n ecess ary t o m eet t h e sentenci n g goals of 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a ) a n d th a t h e shou l d h ave been sentenced b el ow t h e gu i del i n es ran ge. H e contends that hi s assaul tconvi ct i on w as dou bl e coun t ed. H e al so argues t h at hi s personalhi st ory an d cha ract eri st i cs andhi s m o t ivef

o rreent e r i ng t he U ni t e d St at e s s upp o r tas e nt e nc e b e l o w t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 13, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50681 Document: 00511110607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2010N o. 09- 50681

2 gu i del i n es r an ge. Salas cit es Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 2 2 U .S . 8 5 (20 0 7 ), an d argu es t h at th i s c ou rt sh ou l d n otaccor d the sentence a presum pti on of r eas onabl enes s bec ause t he il l egalr ee n try gui del i ne i s nots upport ed by e m p i ri ca l d a ta. S a l a s a ck n ow l ed ge s th a t th i s a rg u m en t i s foreclosed b yth is c o ur t ’ s pr eceden tbutr ai s e s t he i s s ue t o pr e s e rve i tf o rf ur t he rr e vi e w . The sub st an t ive reasona bl en ess of Sa l as’ s s en t en ce i s r evi ew ed f or abu se of d is c r e tio n . G a ll v . Un ite dS t ate s , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 200 9) . “Adi scr et i on ary s e n te n c eim p o s e dw i t h i n ap r o p e r l yc a l c u l a t e dg u i d e l i n e s r a n g e is p r e s u m p tiv e ly rea son a b l e.” Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3d 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ). S al as’ s argum en tt h at th i s c ou rtshou l d not accord hi s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es sentence a pres um pti o n o f r e as o nab l e ne s s b e c ause t h e app l i cabl e gu i del i n e i s not s u p p o r te db ye m p ir ic a l d a ta is fo r e c lo s e d . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. D u a rte , 569 F. 3d 5 2 8 , 5 2 9 -3 1 (5 th C ir .), c e r t. d e n ie d, 130 S. C t . 378 ( 2009) ;Uni t ed S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3d 3 5 7 , 3 6 6 -6 7 (5t h C ir.) , ce rt . den i ed , 130 S. C t . 192 ( 200 9) . Th e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es provi de f or c on si deratio n o f

apri or c on vi ct i on fo rb o th cr i m i n a lh is to r ya n dth e § 2 L 1 .2 e n h a n c e m e n t. S ee U . S. S. G § 2L1. 2, c om m e nt . (n. 6 ) . Ad d i t i o na l l y , t hi s c o ur th a s r ej e c t e dt he a r g um e ntt hat d o u b le -c o u n tin gn e c e s s a r ilyr e n d e r s a s e n te n c e u n r e a s o n a b le . D u a rte , 569 F. 3d at529- 31. Sal as ’ s as serti on s r egar di ng t he age of hi s pri orc onvi c t i on, hi s per so nal h i st ory an d c h aract eri st i cs, an d h i s m ot ive f or r een t eri n g t h e U n i t ed S t ates are in s u ffic ie n t t o re b u t t h e p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. G o m ez- Herrera , 5 23 F. 3d5 54 , 5 65 - 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) . Sa l as ha s not dem on st rat ed that t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s i m posi t i on of a sentence at t h e bott om of t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e w as a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-50681 Document: 00511110607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2010