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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50176 C onfer enc e 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. J ACOBO HEI DE- KEHLER , 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: 08- C R - 2847- 1 B ef ore K IN G , JO L LY , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e dJ a c o b o H e id e -K e h le rto s e rv e 4 6 m o n th s in p r is o n a n dath r e e -y e a rte r m o f s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e fo ll o w in gH e id e -K e h le r ’s con victi on of on e cou n t of attem p tedil l eg a lreen tr yin to t h e U n i tedS tates. In t hi s a ppe al , H e i de - K e hl e rc hall e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e , w hi c h was w i t hi n t he ap pl i c ab l e g ui de l i ne s r ang e , a s b e i ng t o o s e ve r e . H e ar gue s t hatt he pe r t i ne nt G ui de l i ne , U . S. S. G . § 2L1. 2, i m pr o pe r l y do ubl e co unt e d hi s pr i o rc o nvic t i o n a nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50176

2 t hatt he di st r i c tc our t di d not pro per l y w ei gh t he s ent enc i ng fac t or s given i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 220 ( 200 5), w e revi ew se n te n ce s fo r r e a so n a b len e ss inli g h t of th e se n t e n c in gfac to rs in§ 3 5 5 3 (a). Un i t ed Stat es v. Mares , 4 02 F . 3d511 , 519 - 20 (5t h C i r. 200 5) . Pu rsuan tt o G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 52 U . S. 3 8 ( 20 07 ) , w e e nga gei n ab i f ur c at e d r e vi e w o f

t he s e n te n c e im p o s e db yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. D el ga d o- Mart i n ez, 564 F . 3d750 , 752 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . Fir st , w e consi der w h et h e r t h e di st ri ctcourt c o m m i tted a “si gn i fi ca n t pro ced u ra lerro r. ” I d. at 75 2- 53 . I f t he r e i s no such error , w e t h en revi ew th e s u b st an t ive reasona bl en ess of t h e sentence i m posed fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d. a t 7 5 1 -5 3 . W e h a v e p r e v io u s lyreje c te dth e a r g u m e n t t h a t a s e n te n c e im p o s e din ac c or dance w i t h § 2L1. 2 i s gr eat ert han nece ss ar y t o m ee t§ 35 5 3 (a)’ s goal s as are s u lt o f th e a lle g e dd o u b le co u n tin gin h e r e n t in t h a t G u id e lin e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u a rte , 5 6 9 F .3 d5 2 8 , 5 2 9 -3 1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S. C t . 378 ( 2009) . H ei de- K ehl er ’ s doubl e c ount i ng ar gum enti s t hus unavai l i ng. H e i de - K e hl e r ’ s a r gum e nt s c o nc e r ni ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s b al anc i ng o f t he § 355 3( a) fact ors am ou n tto a d i sagreem en tw i t h the di st ri ctcourt ’ s w ei gh i n g of t hes e fac t or s and t he appr opr i at enes s of hi s w i t hi n- gui deli nes s ent enc e. H e has n o t s h o w n th a t h is s e n t e n c e w a s e ith e rp r o c e d u r a llyo rs u b s ta n tiv e ly unreas onabl e, norhas he r ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on o f r eas onabl enes s t hat a tt a c h e s to h is w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Ar m s t ro ng , 550 F .3 d3 8 2 , 4 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 5 4 (2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. A lon zo , 4 3 5 F .3d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). 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.