P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50002 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. A L B E R T O S A L VA D O R P O N C E
- P O N C E , al so kn ow n as Javi er D om i n gu ezA g u ila r , 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- 2 2 1 0
- ALL
B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A lbert o Sa lvad or Pon ce- P on ce (P on ce) app e a l s th e 60-m on t h sentence i m po s e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta f t e rhe pl e ad e d guil t y t o i l l e ga lre e nt r y pur s uant to 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ). H e a r g u e s th a t t h e s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a llyu n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e it is b a s e d , in p a r t, o n c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s fa c ts a n d th a t th e s e n te n c e is g r e a t e rt h a n n e c e s s a r yt o s a t i s f yt h e s e n t e n c i n gg o a l s o u t l i n e di n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50002

2 I n i t s w r i t t e n St at e m e nto f R e as o ns ( SO R) , t he di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l ai ne d t he r eas ons f

ori m pos i ng t he s en te nce by st at i ng t hatt he “ [ d] ef endanthas c om m i t t e dov ert w ent y bur gl ar i es and has notbe en am enabl e t o r ec eived m ent al he al t h t r e at m e ntt o de alw i t h hi s i m pul s ivit y. ” Po nc e a r gue s t hatt hi s s t at e m e nt i s e vi de nce tha tt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as und e rt he m i s t ak e n i m pr e s s i o n t hathe h adref u sed t o t ak e m edi cat i on t o t reathi s bipol ar di sorder andt h at th e di st ri ct court consi dered thi s c l early e r r o n eou s factw h en bal an ci n g t h e § 3553 ( a) fact ors. P on ce has n otd em on st rat ed t h at th e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed p rocedural error b y r e ly in go n cle a r lye r r o n e o u s fa c ts . S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U
. S. 38, 128 S
. C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . He r r e r a- G ar duno , 51 9 F
. 3 d52 6 , 53 0 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). N o t hi ng i n t he r e c o r d i ndi c at e s t hatt he di s t r i c tcou rtw as und e rt he i m pr e s s i o n t hatPo nc e ha d e ve rr e f us e d o f fe r e d t r e at m e nt o r m e di c at i o n. O n t he contrary, t h e rec ord i s c l ear t h at th e di st ri ctcourti m poseda sen t en ce ba sed on P on ce’ s ext en sive cri m i n alhi st ory, w h i ch i n cl u ded at l east el even pri or c onvi c t i ons f

orbur gl ar y o f

a buil di ng and one pri orconvi c t i on f oril l egalr ee nt r y; th e n ee df

or re h a b i l i tati on ; the n ee dto pro tect t h e p u b l i c; an dthe n ee dto pro vi de Ponc e w i t h appro pri at e a nd co nt i nue d m en t alheal t h and m edi c al trea tm en t. P on ce argues t h at al t h ou gh i t w as proper f or t h e di st ri ctcourtt o consi der h i s c ri m i n alhi st ory an d t h e n eed f or det errence, t h e courtf ocused too heav i l y on t h ese fact ors an d di d n otm ean i n gf u l l y consi der ot h er m i t i gati n g circum st an ces s u c h a s h is m e n ta l a n d p h y s ic a l h e a lth is s u e s a n dh is m o tiv e s fo rille g a lly reenteri n g t h e U n i t ed S t ates. O u r r evi ew of th e rec ord reveal s t h at t h e di st ri ct c our tf ul l y c ons i der ed allof t h ese i ss ues and addr es se d Ponce ’ s c onc er ns by r e c o m m e n d in gm e n ta l h e a lth a n dm e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t d u r in gim p r is o n m e n t. As we hav e pr e vi o us l y e xp l ai ne d, “ t he s e nt e nc i ng c o ur ti s f r e e t o c o nc l ude t hatt he a ppli c ab l e G ui de l i ne s r ang e g ive s t o o m uc h o rt o o l i t t l e w e i ghtt o o ne o rm o re factors , an dm a y a dj u st t h e se n ten ce a ccord i n gly u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a ).”N o. 09- 50002

3 Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez- V elasqu ez , 5 2 6 F .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. Ct
. 6 25 ( 20 08 ) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. The r e f o r e , t he di st ri ctcourt di d not err i n consi deri n g P on ce’ s sub st an t i alcr i m i n alhi st ory or th e n ee dto de ter P on ce from f u tu re crim i n a lcon d u ct. P on ce h a s n ot sh ow n tha t his sen ten ce is sub stan tive l y u n rea son a b l e. It w as no ta n a bus e o f di s cret i o n f

o rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o c o nc l ude , c o ns i de r i ng Ponc e ’ s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y andt he § 355 3( a) fac t o r s o f de t e r r e nc e , r e s pe c tf o rt he l a w , an dp r o te c tion of th e p u b l i c, tha t a 60 -m on th sen ten ce w a s n ece ssa ryto a c h ie v e th o s e s e n te n c in gg o a ls
. Se ei d. at 806
- 08. A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.