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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40785 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. VI CT OR HUGO L UGO , 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 t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R

- 1901- 1
B e fo r e D AV IS , S M IT H a n dD E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * V i ct or H u go L u go ap pea l s t h e 41-m on t h sentence i m posed by the di st ri ct c our tf oll ow i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea c onvi c t i on o f pos se ss i on o f

a f i r ear m by an i l l egal a l i en . L u go arg u es th a t t h e d i stri ct co u rt p roce d u ra l l y erre dbyfa i l i n g to sta te ad equ ate r eason s f

or i m posi t i on of

t h i s s en t en ce and t h at t h e courterr ed sub st an t ivel y by i m posi n g an un reasona bl e sentence. A l t h ou gh L u go concedes t h at these i ssues a re revi ew able on l y f or pl ai n err or because t h ey w ere not rai sed b e fo r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, s e eUni t e d St at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 357 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April5, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40785 Document: 00511070015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2010N o. 09- 40785

2 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 30 S. Ct
. 1 92 ( 20 09 ) , he s e e ks t o pr e s e r ve t he i s s ue o f t he p r o p e rs t a n d a r do f

r e v i e w f

o rp o s s ib l e f

u r t h e rr e v i e w. Lu go c ont ends t hatt he di st r i c tcour tdi d n otaddres s hi s ar gum ent s t hat he s ho ul d r e c e ive a low er s e nt e nc e b e c aus e he ha d no pr i o rc r i m i nalr e c o r d; t h ere w as n o evi den ce t h at t h e f i rearm h ad been or w as abou t t o be used ; t h ere w as no evi denc e t hat he knew t hat t he f i r ear m had bee n st ol en ; i t w as qu est i on able w h et h er t h e f i rearm w as au t om ati c; an d he i m m edi atel y t ook
r e s po ns ibi l i t y f

o ro w ni ng t he f

i r e ar m . I ti s cl e arf

r o m t he s e nt e nc i ng t r ans c r i pt t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d a nd r ej e c t e d Lug o ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd t hatt he c our tw as c onc er ned w i t h hi s pri orc onducti n i l l egal l y r ee n t er i ng t he c ount r y, as w el las t h e t yp e of w eap on h e possessed, an Intr atec9 m i l l i m et er pi st oll oad ed w i t h a n a t t ac he d m ag az i ne c o nt ai ni n g 30 l ive r o unds o f a m m uni t i o n, a nd t he ci rcum st an ces i n w h i ch h e h ad p u rchased i t . E ven if the di st ri ctcourtw as not speci f i c i n rej ect i n g L u go’ s argum en t s and di d n otex p la in its reasons f or i m pos i ng a s ent enc e a tt he t op o f t he gui del i nes r ange, Lu go has no ts how n t hat any er r oraf

fec t ed hi s subs t ant i alr i ght s bec ause he has nots how n t h a tan e x p la n a tio n o f

h i s s e n te n c e b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t w o u ldh a v e ch a n g e d h is s e n te n c e . SeeMondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d at363- 65. S im ila r ly , L u g o ’ s a s s e r tio nth a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s t a n t iv e l yu n r e a s o n a b le bec ause i tdoe s not t ake i nt o a c c ountm i t i gat i ng fac t or s i s w i t houtm er i t . Lugo h as not r ebu t t ed the presum pti on of reasonab l en ess of

hi s w i t h i n gu i del i n es sentence a nd h as no ts ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tpl ai nl y e r r e d i n s e nt e nc i ng h im to 4 1 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 6 2 4 (20 0 8 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40785 Document: 00511070015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2010