Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should 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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51113 Su m m ar y C 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. H E C T O R JU A N A L VA R A D O

- M U N IZ , al so kn ow n as H ect or J. A lvarad o, 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 1 4 5 7 - ALL B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * H ect or Jua n A lvarad o- M u n i z (A lvarad o) a pp eal s t h e 18-m on t h sentence h e re c e iv e dfo rille g a l re e n tr yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . H e fir s t a s s e r ts th a t h is w i t h i n - G u i del i n es s en t e nc es ho ul d be va cat ed becau se t h e app l i cabl e G u i del i n es ran ge di d n ota ccoun tforh i s h i st ory, ch aract eri st i cs, m ot ive, or t h e ser i ou sness of t he o f fens e u n d er18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . The di st r i c tc our tc ons i der ed t hat A lvar ado w as r ai se d i n t he U ni t ed St at es and t hathe r et urned t o s ee hi s fam i l y. T h e co u r t e x p lic itlyreje c te d th e n o tio n , h o w e v e r , th a t h is d e s ir e to s e e h is fa m ily United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51113

2 j us t i f i e d hi s v i o l at i o n o f t he i m m i gr at i o n l aws. Alva r ad o ha s fail e d t o r e butt he p r e s u m p tio n t h a t h is G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s re a s o n a b le . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3d 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Al va r ad o ne xtc o nt e nds t hatt he G ui de l i ne s r ang e w as t o o ha r s h i n l i ght o f Ki m brough v. Un it ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 5 8 , 5 7 4 (2 0 0 7 ), b e c a u s e U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 . 2 i s n ot b a sed u p on em p i ri ca l d a ta an d n a ti on a l ex p erien ce . Kim brough

“ al l ow [ s] di st ri ctcourt s, i n t h ei r di scr et i on , t o consi der . . . t h e presence or a b sen ce of em p i ri ca lda ta, a s p a rt of the i r § 3 5 5 3 (a) a n a l ys i s. ” Uni t e d St at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led (J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 8 -1 1 0 9 9 ). Ki m brough do es n ot affect th e a p p ell a te p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s th a t a p p lie s to w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . I d. at366–67 . A lvarad o n ext contend s t h at § 2L 1. 2 “ dou bl e coun t s” a defen da n t ’ s pri or c onvi c t i on by usi ng i tas t he bas i s f orhi s of fens e l eve land hi s c r i m i nalhi st or y. Thi s a r gum e nti s una va i l i ng. Dou bl e c o unt i ng i s pe r m i s s ibl e und e rt he G u i del i n es, so l on g as itis n otprohibi t ed exp l i ci t l y by the ap pl i cabl e G u i del i n e. Uni t ed St at e s v . Cal ba t , 266 F . 3d 358 , 364 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) . Sect i on 2L 1. 2 does n o t e x p r e s s lyp r o h ib it d o u b le co u n tin g . S ee§ 2 L 1 .2, cm t. (n .6). Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.