T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 25, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 07- 2074 v . (D . o f N .M .) OM AR GU AD ALU PE RAM I REZVA ZQU EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR- 0 6 - 1 8 3 8 - BB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** O m arG uadal upe R ami r ez- V azque z pl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryaft er deport at i on s ubs equentt o an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) , and ( b) ( 2) . B as ed on an offens e l evel of 21 and a cr i m i nal hi s t oryof I I I , R ami r ez- V azque z fe l l w i thi n a s ent ence r ange of 46–57 m onths pur s uantt o t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . R ami r ez- V azque z-2-

r eques t ed a dow nw ar d var i ance , ar gui ng the ci r cumst ance s of hi s pr i orconvi ct i on d id n o t w arran t as h igh a se n tenc e a s the G u idelines su g g ested . T h e d istri ct co u rt deni ed the r eques tand s ent ence d R ami r ez- V azque z t o a gui del i nes t erm of 46 m onths . R ami r ez- V azque z t i m el yappea l ed the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

h i s s e n t e n c e . W e AFF I RM .

I . Backg r ound A gr and j uryi ndi ct ed R ami r ez- V azque z fori l l egal r eentryaft erdepor t at i on s u b s e q u e n tt o a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n yc o n v i c t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. §§ 1326( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) , and ( b) ( 2) . H e pl eade d gui l ty , and pr i ort o s ent enci ng, t he governm ent ’ s Pr es ent ence R eport( PSR ) r el at ed the fol l ow i ng: O n A ugus t9, 2 0 0 4 , an O k laho m a state c o u rtco n v ict ed R am ir ez -V az q u ez o f a ssau ltan d b att ery w i th a dange r ous w eapon a nd s ent ence d hi m t o tw o y ear s . O n J ul y28, 2005, aft er s ervi ng hi s s ent ence , R ami r ez- V azque z w as depor t ed t o M exi co. A y earl at er , on J u ly 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , a f

te r i lle g a l r e e n tr y , h e w a s a g a in a rr e s te d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he PSR cal cul at ed a ba s e offens e l evel of ei ghtand a 16- l evel enhanc ementforpr i ordeport at i on s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on fora cr i m e of vi ol e nc e . A ft e ra do w nwar d a dj us t mentfo ra c c e pt a nc e of r e s po ns i bi l i ty , t he PSR arr i ved ata t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21. B as ed on R ami r ez- V azque z’ s as s aul tand b a ttery co n v ictio n , an d b e c a u se ill e g a l re e n tryo c c u rre d w ith in tw o y e a rs a f ter h is re le a s e f

ro m c u s to d y , th e P S R c a lc u la te d a c ri m in a l h is to ry sc o re o f fiv e . A cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e of f i ve ( cat egoryI I I ) and a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21 y i el ded-3-

a gui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange of 46–57 m onths . U nderthe appl i cabl e s t atut e, 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) , t he maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entforR ami r ezV azqu ez’s offense i s 20 y ears . B efor e s ent enci ng, R ami r ez- V azque z fi l ed a s ent enci ng m emora ndum req u esti n g a d o w n w ard v arian ce . R am ir ez -V az q u ez rea so n ed a d o w n w ard var i ance w oul d be pr operbeca us e hi s ear l i eras s aul tand batt ery— w her e he ha d th r e a t e n e d a n o th e rp e r s o n wi th a ma c h e t e — o c c u rr e d s tr i c t l yi n s e l f- d e fe n s e . At s ent enci ng, R ami r ez- V azque z r epea t ed the ar gum entthat , i n the t ot al i tyof the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s , he des erved a dow nw ar d var i ance beca us e of “ the ci r cumst ance s of the pr i oroffe ns e, thathe w as notan i ns t i gat or , [that ] thi s w as s e lf-d e fe n s e . A n d . . . it’ s th e re ta lia to r w h o te n d s to g e t c a u g h t.” A p lt. B r., A t t ach. B at7. B oth i n i t s r es pons e t o R ami r ez- V azque z’ s s ent enci ng m em o ran d u m an d at sen tenc ing , the g o v ern m en t objected to a d o w n w ard var i ance , ar gui ng t he gui del i nes r ange w as notunr eas onabl e underthe § 3553( a) fac t or s . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed R ami r ez- V azque z’ s r eques tfora var i ance and s ent ence d hi m t o 46 m onths i ncar cer at i on, w i thi n the s ugges t ed gui del i nes r ange. II . A n a ly sis R a m ire z -V a z q u e z m o u n ts a p ro c e d u ra l an d a su b sta n tiv e c h a llen g e to h is gui del i nes s ent ence . N ei theri s per s uas i ve.-4-

A . P rocedu ral R eason ab l eness R ami r ez- V azque z ar gues the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o adequa t el yexpl ai n the i m pos ed s ent ence . B eca us e R ami r ez- V azque z di d notr ai s e thi s ar gum entat s e n te n c in g , w e re v ie w o n ly fo r p la in e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Trax l er , 477 F. 3d 1243, 1250 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen ther e i s ( i ) err or , ( i i ) that i s pl ai n, w hi ch ( i i i ) affect s the defendant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( i v) s er i ous l yaffect s the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R ui z - Ter raz as , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). R e c e n tly , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e m p h a siz e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d u tyto sh o w it h a s c o n sid e re d th e se n ten c in g fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) in re a c h in g th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 (2 0 0 7 ) (“ T h e se n ten c in g ju d g e sh o u ld se t fo rth e n o u g h to sa tisf yth e a p p e llate courtthathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s for exer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i ty . ”) . B utthe C our tal s o m ade c le a r t h a t a d is tr ic t ju d g e is n o t r e q u ir e d to g iv e a n e x h a u s tiv e lis t o f re a s o n s . Id. ( “The l aw l eave s m uch, i n thi s r es pect , t o the j udge’ s ow n pr ofes s i onal jud g m en t. ”). T he di s tr i ctcourther e di d m or e than enough t o es t abl i s h R ami r ezV azque z’ s s ent ence as pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. T he courts peci fi cal l ys t at ed, “I don’ tthi nk ther e i s anythi ng i n [§] 3553 t hatper s uades m e the l ow erend of the-5-

gui del i nes i s notappr opr i at e. ” A pl t . B r . , A t t ach. B . at14. M or eover , the di s tr i ct courts quar el yaddr es s ed R ami r ez- V azque z’ s keyar gum entfora var i ance by s ay i ng, “I ’ m notr eal l yper s uaded thi s i s an offens e thatw oul d be out s i de of the nor m al vi ol entoffe ns e. H e obvi ous l ydi d nothur tany one, al though t hatpot ent i al w a s c e rta in ly th e re w ith a m a c h e te . ” Id. at13 ( emphasi s added) . T he di s tr i ct court ’ s expl anat i on i s a fa rcryfr om a ca s e w her e a j udge has compl et el yi gnor ed th e d e fe n d a n t’ s n o n -f ri v o lo u s a rg u m e n ts . C f. Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1117–18 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( r emandi ng forr es ent enci ng and i nst ruct i ng the d i stri ctcou rtt o ad dress the d efen dan t ’s “no tcl earl ym eri t l ess” ar gum ent ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtj udge metR ami r ez- V azque z’ s ar gum enthead on, thus comm i t t i ng no err or , pl ai n orotherw i s e. B . Su bstan t i ve R eason ab l eness R a m ire z -V a z q u e z a lso c h a llen g e s th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is s ent ence . W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s i n l i ghtof th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) s e n te n c in g fa c to rs . Un itedS ta tes v . K ris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcourthas s i gni fi cantdi s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng, and ourr evi ew forr eas onabl enes s , r egar dl es s of w hetherthe s ent ence fal l s i ns i de or o u ts id e th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s , is a re v ie w fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . R ita , 12 7 S. C t. at 2 4 5 6 ; see al so Unit ed S tates v. G arci a-La ra , N o . 0 6 - 3 0 5 4 , 2 0 0 7 WL 2 3 8 0 9 9 1 , at *2 (10 th C ir . A u g . 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ).-6-

I n thi s cas e, the di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d R ami r ez- V azque z w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange a nd R ami r ez- V azque z does notcl ai m the r ange i t s el f w as i m pr oper l ycal cul at ed. T he bi ndi ng pr ece denti n ourcourti s that“a s ent ence t hat i s pr oper l ycal cul at ed underthe G ui del i nes i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” K ris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 4 ; see al so R ita , 127 S. C t . at2459 ( hol di ng thatthe pr es um pt i on i s perm i s s i bl e butnotr equi r ed) . N everthel es s , the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s “i s a defer ent i al s t andar d thatei therthe defendant o r th e g o v e rn m e n t m a yre b u t b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le w hen vi ew ed aga i ns tthe otherfac t or s del i neat ed i n § 3553( a) . ” K ris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054. W e ca nnotfi nd an abus e of di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng of R a m ire z -V a z q u e z w ith in th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d a ll th e s a me a r g u me n t s Ra mi r e z - Va z q u e z p r e s e n t s o n a p p e a l a n d r ej e c t e d th e m, n o tice a b lytro u b led th a t a 2 5 -y e a r o ld d e fe n d a n t alre a d y“ h a s th a t re lativ e ly s er i ous offe ns e i n O kl ahoma, and has r eent er ed thi s country . ” A pl t . B r . , A t t ach. B at14. M or eover , t he mer e fa ctthata l ow ers ent ence al s o m ayhave be en re a s o n a b le d o e s n o t p ro v e th e u n re a s o n a b le n e s s o f R a m ir e z -V a z q u e z ’s s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B egay , 470 F. 3d 964, 975 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “I n anygi ven c a se th e re c o u ld b e a ra n g e o f re a so n a b le s e n ten c e s th a t in c lu d e s s e n ten c e s b o th w ith in a n d o u ts id e th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e .” ), cert . gran t ed in part , N o. 06- 11543, 2007 W L 1579420 ( Sept . 25, 2007) . R ami r ez- V azque z fa i l ed t o r ebutthe-7-

r eas onabl enes s of hi s w i thi n- gui del i nes s ent ence . W e ca nnot , ther efor e, s aythat the di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng R ami r ez- V azque z. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge