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 col 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. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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. 05- 1566 v. D . C ol or ado RO BE RT O E S T RA DA- L OZ ANO,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 22 0- PSF)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. R ober t o E s t r ada- L ozano pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryaft erdepor t at i on su b seq u en t t o an ag g rav ated fe lon yco n v ict ion in v iolati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a), (b )(2 ). H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 5 7 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls f ro m h is-2-

s e n te n c e . W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d A F F I R M. I. B ackgr ound E stra d a -L o z a n o is a c iti z e n o f M e x ico . W h e n h e w a s th irtee n , h e m o v e d to th e U n ited S tate s w ith h is m o th e r. In M a y1 9 9 3 a t ag e e ig h tee n , h e p led g u iltyto m i s demeanorus e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and fe l onypos s es s i on of coc ai ne for s al e i n t he St at e of Cal i forni a ( C as e N o. 163403) . H e w as s ent ence d t o a s us pended s ent ence of 6 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand 3 y ear s pr obat i on. T hr ee m ont hs l at erhe w as arr es t ed aga i n i n C al i forni a forfel onypos s es s i on of m ar ij uana fors al e ( C as e N o. 167670) . I n N ovember1993, he pl ed gui l tyand w as s ent ence d t o 16 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . Si m ul t aneous l y , hi s pr obat i on w as re v o k e d in C a se N o . 1 6 3 4 0 3 a n d h e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 y e a rs im p riso n m e n t, t o run concurr entw i t h hi s 16- m ont h s ent ence . A s a r es ul tof hi s pos s es s i on of coca i ne fors al e convi ct i on, E s t r ada- L ozano w as depor t ed on oraboutN ovember 18, 1994. H i s abs ence fr om t he U ni t ed St at es appea r s t o have be en s hor t - l i ved. Fr om D ece m ber1995 t hr ough February2002, he w as convi ct ed i n the St at e of Col or ado o f fiv e m isd e m e a n o r d riv in g -re late d o ffe n se s a n d o n e m isd e m e a n o r d a m a g e to p ro p e rtyo ffe n se . H e a lso fa th e re d th e c h ild o f a n A m e ric a n c iti z e n in a p p ro x im a te ly 1 9 9 9 . I n A ugus t2004, t he pol i ce i n W heatR i dge, C ol or ado, a rre ste d h im a f

ter re c e iv in g a 9 1 1 c a ll fro m h is g irlfr ien d (a n d m o th e r o f h isE s t r ada- L ozano w as s ent ence d pur s uantt o the 2004 edi t i on of the U ni t ed 1 St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on G ui del i nes M anual . A l l ci t at i ons t o the gui del i nes i n thi s O rder& Judg em ent r efer t o the 200 4 g uidel i nes un l ess otherw i se in d ic a te d . -3- ch il d ) af ter he en tered h er resid en ce thro u g h a w ind o w in v iolati o n o f a tem p o rary r es t r ai ni ng or der . T hatconductl ed t o a cha r ge of f i r s tdegr ee fel onytr es pas s of a d w ell ing , to w h ich h e p led g u il tyan d w as e v en tuallysen tenc ed to 2 y ea rs p r o b a t i o n . I n M a y2 0 0 5 , t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Bu r e a u o f I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n fo r c e m e n tt o o k h i m i n t o c u s t o d y. E s t r ada- L ozano w as i ndi ct ed fori l l egal r eentryaft erdeport at i on s ubs equent to an ag g rav ated fe lon yco n v ict ion in v iolati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a), (b)(2 ). Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eementw i t h the governm ent , he pl ed gui l ty . I n excha nge, th e g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to re c o m m e n d a se n ten c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e a p p lica b le advi s or ygui del i ne r ange a nd agr eed t o a 3- poi ntdow nw ar d adj us t m entfor acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . A pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) w as pr epar ed. T he PSR det erm i ned Estr ada- L ozano’ s bas e offens e l evel w as 8 underthe appl i cabl e gui del i ne U SSG §2L 1. 2. B eca us e Estr ada- L ozano ha d been 1 pr evi ous l ydepor t ed af t era fe l onydrug- tr aff i cki ng convi ct i on forw hi ch the s ent ence i m pos ed exc eede d 13 m onths , t he bas e offens e l evel w as i ncr eas ed 16 leve ls un d er U S S G § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)(1 )(A ). A fter ap p ly ing a 3 -l ev el do w n w ard a dju s tm e n t fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility, s ee U S S G §3 E 1. 1, t he tot al offenseE s t r ada- L ozano c l ai m ed: 2 [H e] w as s en tence d t o a t ot al of tw o y ear s i n pr i s on, w hi ch w as pr opor t i onat e t o t he offens es . B u t the per i pher al i m pactof the d ep o rt ati o n an d li k ely li fe ti m e ex il e h as b ee n d ev astati n g b ey o n d m ere puni s hm ent . N otonl yw as he ca s t from thes e s hor es , buthe i s now b e i n g p u n i s h e d b e c a u s e o f th o s e o l d mi s t a k e s b ya v e ryy o u n g ma n . He i s l ooki ng at an addi t i onal thr ee y ear s beca us e of the o ld d rug convi ct i ons and the puni s hm ent s r ece i ved. I ts eems t oo m uch. (R . V o l. I , D o c . 1 6 a t 4 .) -4- l evel w as 21. B as ed on a Cri m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryof I V , the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s 5 7 -7 1 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. E s t r ada- L ozano di d notobj ectt o the PSR ’ s fac tual s t at ement s orgui del i ne cal culat i on s. I ns t ead, he fi l ed a mot i on fordow nw ar d departur e orfora s ent ence b e lo w th e g u id e lin e ra n g e in lig h t o f th e fa c to rs s e t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). H e c la im e d a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re w a s w a rr a n te d b e c a u s e , in tera lia , ( 1 ) h i s t wo m os toffe ns i ve pr i orconvi ct i ons ( pos s es s i on fors al e of mar ij uana a nd coca i ne) i nvol ved s m al l amount s of drugs and occ urr ed w hen he w as a t eena gerl i vi ng i n a c o m m u n ityw h e re m a n yo f h is p e e rs w e re in v o lv e d in th e u se a n d sa le o f sm a ll am ou nts of d rugs, (2) he h ad n ot been i nv olved w i th the sal e of d rugs si nce those convi ct i ons , ( 3) t he i m pactof thos e convi ct i ons has been di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he s i ze a nd s cal e of thos e offens es , and ( 4) he i s cul tur al l yas s i m i l at ed t o the U ni t ed 2 S tate s. S p e c ifica lly , h e h a s liv e d h e re sin c e h e w a s th irtee n , h a s b e e n e d u c a ted in A m er i can hi gh s chool s , has w or ked and c ontr i but ed t o s oci etyas a w i ndow w a sh e r, h a s b e e n in a c o m m itt e d re latio n sh ip w ith a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n , w h o isA departur e occ ur s “w hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he 3 r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 4 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 1 , n .1 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) . A var i ance occur s “w hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he r ecomm ended r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Id. -5- al s o t he mot herof hi s chi l d, has s i bl i ngs w ho l i ve i n the U ni t ed St at es and does notknow any one i n M exi co. B as ed on the above fac t or s , E s tr ada- L ozano a r gued a 30- m ont h s ent ence w as appr opr i at e. T he governm entvi gor ous l yoppos ed the m ot i on. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the c o u rt a sk e d d e fe n se c o u n se l w h a t fa c ts sugg est ed E strada- L ozan o w ou l d no t return t o the U nit ed S t at es. In r eply , defe nse couns el s ai d E s t r ada- L ozano w as now aw ar e of the cons equenc es of i l l egal l yr ee n ter in g th e U n ited S tate s a n d h a s a n u m b e r o f o p p o rtu n iti e s in M e x ico d u e to h is A m eri can ed ucati on and fl uen cyi n b oth E ng l i sh and S pan i sh. E strada- L ozan o als o per s onal l yi nform ed the courthe w as s orryfori l l egal l yr e- ent er i ng the countr yand “itw il l nev er h ap p en ag ain.” (R . V o l. III at 8.) A fter co n su lt ing the a d v isory gui del i nes , cons i der i ng t he s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and rev iew ing the “ v eryca p ab le an d arti cu lat e b ri efing o n the m o ti o n to d ep art dow nw ar d orot herw i s e s ent ence bel ow t he [gui del i ne] r ange, ” the courtadopt ed the PSR ’ s gui del i ne ca l cul at i ons and s ent ence d E s tr ada- L ozano t o 57 m onths im p ri s o n m e n t. (Id. at9. ) W hi l e ac know l edgi ng i tw as a “t ough s ent ence , ” the di s t r i ctcourtfound no r eas on t o departfr om the gui del i ne r ange ori m pos e a s ent ence of var i ance w i t h t he gui del i nes , s t at i ng: 3-6-

T hi s part i cul ardefe ndantw as puti n a t ough pos i t i on as a y outh. A nd, on t he otherhand, he has a cr i m i nal r ecor d thatpr event s hi m fr om b e c o m in g a c itiz e n a n d p re v e n ts h im f ro m g e ttin g a lo w e r s e n te n c e . A nd I do agr ee w i t h t he di s tr i ctj udge i n [ United S tates v. Morales C hai r es , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )] th a t a s e n ten c e n o t o n lyh a s to a p p lyto th is in d iv id u a l b u t itd o e s h a v e to f u lfill th e n e e d to p ro m o te r e s p e c tfo rt h e l a w. (Id. at9- 10. ) E s t r ada- L ozano t i m el yappea l ed. I I. D is cus s i on E s t r ada- L ozano a r gues hi s s ent ence w as nei therr eas oned norr eas onabl e w hen view ed ag ai nstt he sentenci ng fact ors s etforth in 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . H e al so cl ai m s affor di ng a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o s ent ence s w i thi n the gui del i ne r ange i s unw arr ant ed and i n confl i ctw i th Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 (20 0 5 ). A . R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence E s t r ada- L ozano a r gues hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s s et fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ) b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to c o n sid e r h is a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g (1 ) t h e d e te rr e n t e ffe c t p ri s o n h a d o n h im , i . e. , he has notcomm i t t ed a d ru g -re late d c rim e sin c e h is 1 9 9 3 c o n v ictio n s, (2 ) h is p e rso n a l as su ra n c e h e w o u ld notr e- ent ert he countr yi l l egal l y , and ( 3) hi s couns el ’ s as s ur ance he w oul d not i l l egal l yr etur n t o t he U ni t ed St at es beca us e he now under s t ands the s er i ous cons equenc es and has oppor tuni t i es i n M exi co. H ad the di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed t hese argum ents , he clai m s, a l essersent ence w ou l d h ave b een im po sed bec auseE s t r ada- L ozano i s notcont es t i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i onarydeni al 4 of hi s m ot i on fordow nw ar d departur e and r i ght l ys o beca us e w e do nothave ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. Uni t ed Stat es v. C havez -D i az , 444 F. 3d 1223, 1229 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t cla im s w e sh o u ld re v iew E stra d a -L o z a n o ’s a rg u m e n ts 5 undert he pl ai n- err ors t andar d. R el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , it cl ai m s t hatbeca us e Estr ada- L ozano i s chal l engi ng the met hod byw hi ch the di s t r i ctcourtarr i ved athi s s ent ence , as oppos ed t o i t s l ength, hi s fai l ur e t o obj ect t o t hatm ethod i n t he di s t r i ctcourtw arr ant s pl ai n- err orr evi ew . 444 F. 3d 1218, 1221- 22 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . E s t r ada- L ozano a r gues he i s chal l engi ng b o th t he re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e m e th o d u se d b yth e d istric t co u rt to im p o se se n ten c e a n d its l eng t h. H e furt her ass ert s Lopez - F l or es h a s b e e n l i m i t e d b y Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , w hi ch di d notappl ypl ai n err or rev iew ev en tho u g h the d efen d an t had n o t objected to the d istri ct co u rt ’s s ent enci ng m ethod. W e agr ee w i th E s tr ada- L ozano thathe i s chal l engi ng bot h t he l ength of hi s s ent ence and the met hod us ed t o i m pos e i t . H ow ever , w e di s agr ee th a t Sanchez - Juar ezl i m i t ed the s cope of Lopez - F l or es . I n Sanchez - Juar ez , t he (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- t hes e fa ct s adequa t el yr ebutt he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s acc or ded s ent ence s im p o s e d w ith in a p ro p e rl yc a lc u la te d g u id e lin e ra n g e . E stra d a -L o z a n o a lso a ss e rts t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o pr ovi de r eas ons forr ej ect i ng hi s ar gum ent s . H e al l eges s u c h r e a s o n i n g i s n e c e s s a r yt o a s s i s tt h i s Co u r ti n i t s r e a s o n a b l e n e s s r e v i e w. 4 W e re v iew se n ten c e s im p o se d p o st- B ookerfo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Uni t ed Stat es v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). R e a so n a b len e ss “ n e c e ss a rily encompas s es bot h t he r eas onabl enes s of the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as t he m ethodbyw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Id . a t 1 0 5 5 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 2 (1 0 th C ir.) (“ [ S ]e n ten c e s m u st b e b o th su b sta n tiv e ly a n d p ro c e d u ra lly re a s o n a b le .” ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 570 ( 2006) . I n thi s cas e, E strada- L ozan o is chall eng i ng bo th aspec t s of reasonab l eness. 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 s t andar d of r evi ew w as neveraddr es s ed. N everthel es s , w e nee d notr es ol ve the iss u e . If

th e p lain e rro r sta n d a rd o f re v iew d o e s n o t ap p ly , o u r c o n c lu sio n w o u ld be the s ame— the met hod us ed t o arr i ve atthe s ent ence as w el l as the l ength of t he s ent ence ar e r eas onabl e. -8- A s t o t he r eas onabl enes s of the l ength of hi s s ent ence , E s tr ada- L ozano doe s notchal l enge the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the gui del i nes ori t s cal cul at i on of the g u id e lin e ra n g e . T h u s, b e c a u se h e w a s s e n ten c e d w ith in th a t ra n g e , h is s e n ten c e is ent i t l ed t o a “r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054 ( “[A ] s ent ence t hati s pr oper l ycal cul at ed underthe G ui del i nes i s ent i t l ed t o a re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss .”). “ T h e d e fe n d a n t m a yre b u t th is pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng t hatthe s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the other s ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Id . a t 1 0 5 5 . I n r ebutt al , E s tr ada- L ozano cl ai m s t he di s t r i ctcourtfai l ed t o cons i derhi s ar gum ent s and fa i l ed t o pr ovi de r eas ons forr ej ect i ng t hem. T hi s ar gum entr equi r es us fi r s tt o cons i derthe r eas onabl enes s of the m ethodbyw hi ch Estr ada- L ozano’ s s ent ence w as i m pos ed. I n B ooker , t he Supr eme C our tr emedi ed the cons t i tut i onal i nfi r m i tyof the g u id e lin e s b yin v a lid a tin g th e ir m a n d a to ryn a tu re , req u irin g th e d istric t co u rt to c o n su lt th e m in a n a d v iso ryfa sh io n b u t p e rm itt in g th e c o u rt to tailo r th e se n ten c e in l i ghtof others ent enci ng goal s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . 543 U . S. at245- 46 ( s ever i ng and exc i s i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3553( b) ( 1) ) . W hi l e the di s tr i ctcour ti s r equi r ed t o cons i der§ 3553( a) ’ s s ent enci ng fac t or s w hen i m pos i ng s ent ence , w e have not re q u ir e d it to e x p re s s ly m e n tio n e a c h fa c to r i n im p o s in g s e n te n c e . See Mar t i nez , 455T hos e fa ct or s i ncl ude: t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e; t he 6 h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e fe n d a n t; th e n e e d fo r th e se n ten c e im p o se d to refl ectt he seri ou sness of t he o ffen se, prom ote r espectfor the law , provide j ust puni s hm entfort he offens e, affor d adequa t e det err ence , pr ot ectt he publ i c, and pr ovi de the defendantw i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e orot hercorr ect i onal t r eatm enti n the mosteffect i ve manner ; pert i nent gui del i nes ; pert i nentpol i cys t at ement s ; t he nee d t o avoi d unw ant ed s ent ence d ispa ri ti es; an d the n ee d to p rov ide re sti tuti o n . 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). -9- F. 3d at1131- 32 ( r ej ect i ng defe ndant ’ s ar gum entthatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed bynot s peci fi cal l ycons i der i ng § 3553( a) w her e the courtcons ul t ed the gui del i nes i n an advi s or yfas hi on, exer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng bel ow the gui del i ne r ange, hear d m ul t i pl e ar gum ent s r egar di ng the appr opr i at e s ent enci ng r ange a nd w as fa m ili a r w ith th e re lev a n t fa c ts); Uni t ed Stat es v. R i nes , 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t hatw e do notr equi r e the di s tr i ctcourtt o “mar ch thr ough § 3 5 5 3 (a)’s sen tenc ing fa ctors” w h en im p o sing sen tenc e; up h o lding sen tenc e w h ere th e d istric t co u rt sta ted it “lo o k e d a t th e re c o rd in its e n tirety ,” h e a rd a rg u m e n ts r egar di ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence , and conc l uded a 70 mont h s ent ence w as a p p ro p ri a te ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 0 8 9 (2 0 0 6 ). I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed i thad cons ul t ed the gui del i nes i n an a d v iso ry fa sh io n a n d c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) se n ten c in g fa c to rs. It f u rth e r sta ted it 6 had r evi ew ed the part i es ’ br i efs on w hetherE s tr ada- L ozano s houl d r ece i ve a s ent ence bel ow t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange, w hi ch i ncl uded the ar gum ent conce r ni ng t he det err enteffectpr i s on l i fe ha d on hi m . I tal s o adopt ed the fa ctual s t at ement s and gui del i ne appl i cat i ons i n the PSR . T he PSR cont ai ned a di s cus s i on of-10-

t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , focus i ng on E s tr ada- L ozano’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand the fa ct pr evi ous pr obat i on and j ai l s ent ence s had notdet err ed hi m fr om comm i t t i ng new crim es, i n clud ing firstd eg ree fe lon ytr esp ass o f a d w ell ing . W h il e the d istri ct co u rt d id n o t exp resslyw eigh ea ch § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctor, i t did c o n side r E str ad a-L o za n o ’s chi l dhood and cul tur al as s i m i l at i on t o the U ni t ed St at es , hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d, the lik e lih o o d h e w o u ld re c id iv a te a n d , in p a rticu lar , the n e e d fo r th e se n ten c e to pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw . T hus , the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s s ent enci ng m ethod w as p rop er. E s t r ada- L ozano r el i es on Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ezforthe pr opos i t i on t hata di s t r i ctcour ti s r equi r ed t o s t at e r eas ons forr ej ect i ng a non- fr i vol ous m ot i on fo r a s e n te n c e b e lo w th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e ra n g e . 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re , S a n c h e z -Ju a re z p led g u iltyto ill e g a l re e n trya f ter d e p o rta tio n su b se q u e n t to an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on. H e di d notobj ectt o the PSR ’ s gui del i ne cal cul at i on, i ns t ead f

i l i ng a s ent enci ng m emora ndum ar gui ng fora s ent ence bel ow t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange. H e cl ai m ed a l ow ers ent ence w as w arr ant ed bas ed on th e re lativ e lym in o r n a tu re o f h is p rio r a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y , h is e x c e p tio n a l fa m ily ci r cumst ance s ( i . e. , hi s havi ng t o s uppor ta w i fe a nd tw o chi l dr en) , the har s her re stric tio n s a lien in m a tes re c e iv e in p riso n c o m p a re d to th e ir n o n -a lien c o u n terp a rts a n d th e se n ten c in g d isp a rityc a u se d b yth e e x iste n c e o f “ fa st-tra c k ” p ro g ra m s inA “fast-trac k ” p rog ram p rov ides fo r red u ce d sen tenc es in il lega l r ee n try 7 c a s e s w h e re a d e fe n d a n t p le a d s g u ilty. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d at1112. -11- s om e j ur i s di ct i ons but not i n ot her s . T he governm entoppos ed a s ent ence bel ow t he 7 advi s or ygui del i ne r ange, cl ai m i ng t her e w as nothi ng atypi cal aboutSanchez Ju are z’s b ac k g rou n d as m an yd efen d an ts ha v e d ep en d en t spo u ses a n d ch il d ren . It al s o as s er t ed hi s pr i oral i en tr ans por t i ng convi ct i on w as expr es s l yaddr es s ed i n t he g u idelines as a co n v ict ion w arran ti n g a 1 6 -l ev el en h an ce m en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt adopt ed the PSR ’ s gui del i ne ca l cul at i on r ange a nd s ent ence d Sanchez - J uar ez t o t he bot t om of thatr ange. Sanchez - J uar ez appeal ed, cl ai m i ng hi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o s t at e r eas ons fort he sen tenc e itim p o sed an d to co n side r his arg u m en ts th at th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors w a rr a n te d a s e n te n c e b e lo w th e a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e . O n appea l , w e ac know l edged thatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence att he bot t om of the gui del i ne r ange c oul d be i nt erpr et ed as a func t i onal r ej e c t i o n o f

S a n c h e z - J u a r e z ’ s a r g u me n t s a n d a d e n i a l o f h i s r e q u e s tfo ra b e l o wg u id e lin e s e n te n c e . Id. at1115. H ow ever , becaus e the courts t at ed no r eas ons for t he s ent ence i ti m pos ed ( ot hert han ci t i ng Sanchez - J uar ez’ s offe ns e conduc tand not i ng i thad r evi ew ed the PSR ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and cons i der ed the gui del i ne appl i cat i ons ) and di d notr efe rt o the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e conc l uded r emand w as a p p ro p ri a te . Id. at1115, 1118. W hi l e w e r ecogni zed thatboth befor e and a ft er B ookerw e have notdemanded t he di s tr i ctcourtt o r eci t e anym agi c w or ds t o s how us-12-

it co n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, w e fo u n d th is p rin c ip le d id n o t m e a n w e c o u ld pr es um e the di s t r i ctcour tw ei ghed the defendant ’ s ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof § 3553( a) w her e the r ecor d pr ovi des no i ndi cat i on i tdi d s o and no cl earexpl anat i on of the s e n te n c e im p o s e d . Id. at1115- 16. W e al s o r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s ar gum entt hat t he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s w e affor d a s ent ence w i thi n the gui del i ne r ange r ender s m ootanyques t i on conce rni ng the ade quacyof the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng m e th o d . Id. a t 1 1 1 6 -1 7 . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t re q u irin g th e d istric t co u rt to sta te its r eas ons forr ej ect i ng a part y ’ s nonfr i vol ous m ot i on fora s ent ence bel ow the g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s n o t in c o m p a tib le w ith th a t p re s u m p tio n . Id. a t1 1 1 7 . I n s u m, w e hel d: W e ar e ther efor e per s uaded thatourpr e- B ookerr equi r ementthatdi s tr i ct court s pr ovi de s uffi ci entr eas ons t o al l ow m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew of thei rdi s cr et i onarys ent enci ng deci s i ons cont i nues t o appl yi n the p o st- B ookercont ext . I n part i cul ar , w her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a n o n f riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t th a t th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs w a rra n t a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a s ent ence , w e m u st b e a b le to d isc e rn f ro m th e re c o rd th a t th e se n ten c in g ju d g e d id notr es ton t he gui del i nes al one, butcons i der ed w hetherthe gui del i nes sen tenc e a ctua ll yco n fo rm s, in the circu m stan ce s, to the statu tory fact ors. Id. at 11 1 8 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). Sa nch ez-Jua rez is c lea rlyd istin g u ish a b le. U n lik e th e d istric t co u rt in Sanchez - Juar ez , t he courti n t hi s cas e s t at ed i thad cons i der ed the § 3553( a) se n ten c in g fa c to rs. T h e c o u rt’s d isc u ss io n a t se n ten c in g su p p o rts th is, a s it e x p re ss ly m ent i oned Estr ada- L ozano’ s backgr ound, cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the nee d fortheW e re c e n tly c la ri fie d a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d u ty o f e x p la n a tio n a t s e n te n c in g . 8 Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , -- F .3 d --, N o . 0 6 -2 1 3 8 , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 6 0 3 4 (1 0 th C i r . Feb. 26, 2007) . T her e, l i ke her e, t he di s tr i ctcourtent er t ai ned ext ens i ve § 3553( a) ar gum entand expl ai ned on the r ecor d i thad cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s . N evert hel es s , R ui z- T err aza s cl ai m ed the di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbeca us e i tfai l ed t o s peci fi cal l ys t at e w hyi tr ej ect ed hi s § 3553( a) arg u m en ts. A p p ly ing p lai n erro r rev iew , w e c o n clud ed the d istri ct co u rt co m m itted n o erro r. Id. at*2 . W e no t ed thatw hil e § 3 55 3(c) (2) requi res a di s t r i ctcourtt o pr ovi de a s peci fi c s t at ementof r eas ons w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence out s i de the gui del i nes , § 3553( c) ( 1) onl yr equi r es t he courtt o pr ovi de a ge ner al s ta te m e n t o f

re a s o n s w h e n im p o s in g a s e n te n c e fa llin g w ith in th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . Id. W e al s o ci t ed t o Un ite dS ta te s v . L op ez -F lo r e s , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 (10 th C ir . (c o n tin u e d ...) -13- s ent ence t o pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw . I tfur thercons i der ed w hetherL ozanoJu a re z w a s lik e lyto ill e g a llyre -e n ter th e c o u n try , as e v id e n c e d b yits in q u iryto defe ns e couns el s eeki ng as s ur ance s thatE s tr ada- L ozano w oul d notr eturn t o the U ni t ed St at es w i t houtperm i s s i on. I ti s al s o cl earfr om the r ecor d the r eas ons t he c o u rt reje c te d E s tr a d a -L o z a n o ’s m o tio n fo r a b e lo w -g u id e lin e s e n te n c e , i . e. , h is c ri m in a l h is to ry a n d th e n e e d fo r t h e s e n te n c e to p ro m o te re s p e c t fo r t h e la w . M or eover , t he PSR , unl i ke the PSR i n Sanchez -Juar ez , cont ai ned a di s cus s i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors and m ade a sen t encing recom m end at i on based o n those fact ors. C ompar e Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d at1115 n. 6 ( not i ng PSR , unl i ke other s w e had s een, di d notr efe rt o ordi s cus s t he § 3553( a) fac t or s orm ake a s ent enci ng rec o m m en d ati o n b ase d o n tho se fac tors). T h u s, the re co rd re flec ts th e d istri ct co u rt “di d notr es ton t he gui del i nes al one, butcons i der ed w hetherthe gui del i nes s ent ence actual l yconform s , i n t he ci r cumst ance s , t o the s t atut or yfac t or s . ” Id. at1118 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 2 0 0 6 ), fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a d istric t co u rt n e e d n o t re c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s to p ro v e it c o n s id e re d § 3 5 5 3 . Id. at*4 ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . L as t l y , w e r ej ect ed R ui z- T err aza s ’ r el i ance on Sanchez - Juar ez . Id. at*5. W e conc l uded Sa nch ezJuar ezand i t s pr ogenys i m pl yhol d “w e w i l l s t ep i n and fi nd err orw hen the r e c o r d g i v e s u s r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a to u ro r d i n a ry (Lopez - F l or es ) pr es um pt i on that t he di s t r i ctcour tknew and appl i ed the l aw i s m i s pl ace d. ” Id. W e al so di s t i ngui s hed Sanchez - Juar ezb a se d o n th e fa c t th e re w a s n o in d ica tio n in Sanchez - Juar ezt h a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c t o r s a n d we c o u ld n o t d is c e rn a c le a r e x p la n a tio n fo r t h e s e n te n c e g iv e n . Id . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcourthad ent ert ai ned R ui z- T err anza ’ s § 3353( a) ar gum ent s , i ndi cat ed on th e re c o rd it h a d c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs a n d p ro c e e d e d to e x p lain its r el i ance on s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange, w e det erm i ned Sanchez - Juar ez ’s r eas oni ng w as i nappl i cabl e. T he s ame i s true her e. -14- Ha v i n g fo u n d E s t r a d a - L o z a n o ’ s s e n t e n c e t o b e p r o c e d u r a l l yr e a s o n a b l e , we now tur n t o w hetherhe has r ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s thatatt ache s t o hi s corr ect l ycal cul at ed gui del i ne r ange s ent ence . H e att empt s t o r ebutthe p re su m p tio n b yp o in tin g to th e d e ter re n t effe c t p riso n h a s h a d o n h im a n d h is as s ur ance s t hathe w oul d notr e- ent erthe countryi l l egal l y . A s t o the form er ar gum ent , he cl ai m s he has notcomm i t t ed anotherdrug- r el at ed cr i m e s i nce he w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on i n 1994. H ow ever , he has comm i t t ed s ever al non- drug r el at ed c rim e s, in c lu d in g se v e ra l d riv in g -re late d m isd e m e a n o rs, a d a m a g e to p ro p e rty m isd e m e a n o r, a first d e g re e fe lo n ytre sp a ss o f a d w e lli n g , an d , o f

c o u rse , il leg a lly r e- ent er i ng t hi s countr yaft erbei ng deport ed. W hi l e he dow npl ay s the s er i ous nes s of th e se o ffe n se s, th e ir c o m m iss io n d e m o n stra te a d isre sp e c t fo r th e law s o f th is c o u n try . In d e e d , o n e o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs th e d istric t co u rt re lied u p o n in i mp o s i n g s e n t e n c e wa s t h e n e e d fo rth e s e n t e n c e t o p r o mo t e r e s p e c tfo rth e l a w.T h at co n side rati o n co u ld, and sh o u ld, be fleeti n g . T h is de fe n d an t’ s 9 as s ur ance s t hathe has l earned hi s l es s on and i s now i rr evoca bl ycomm i t t ed t o a la w a b id in g life h a rd ly re s o n a te s in th e c ru c ib le o f u n re m ittin g c ri m in a l b e h a v io r. A nd i ti s , i ndeed, m y s t i fy i ng how any one w oul d thi nk the ec ho of hol l ow p r o mi s e s u t t e r e d b yd e fe n s e c o u n s e l c o u l d a d d c r e d e n c e t o t h e i n c r e d i b l e . No cour ts houl d everbe r equi r ed t o gi ve l engthyors er i ous cons i der at i on t o s uch cu lt ivated an d d u b iou s ass erti o n s. P ast b eh av ior i s the b est p red ict o r of fu ture b e h a v io r. -15- W e s i m i l ar l yr ej ectE s t r ada- L ozano’ s ar gum entthata bel ow gui del i ne r ange s ent ence w as appr opr i at e bec aus e he ( as w el l as hi s couns el ) as s ur ed the courthe w oul d noti l l egal l yr e- ent ert he country . T he di s tr i ctcourtobvi ous l ycons i der ed t hes e as s ur ance s ( i ndeed i tas ked forthem) buts t i l l found a s ent ence bel ow the gui del i ne r ange w as not w arr ant ed. N otw i ths t andi ng E s tr ada- L ozano’ s per s onal 9 as s ur ance s , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterri n concl udi ng s uch as s ur ance s di d not w a rra n t a s e n ten c e b e lo w th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e (th e n a tio n a l n o rm ) in th is c a s e . Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 8 (10 th C ir . ) (en b an c), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 495 ( 2005) . H i s bi l i ngual abi l i t i es and A m er i can e ducat i on w e re p re s e n t b e fo re h e ille g a lly re -e n te re d th e c o u n tr ya f te r h is 1 9 9 4 d e p o rt a tio n . M or eover , w e pr es um e s uch as s ur ance s ar e s t andar d far e i n cas es s uch as t hi s . T hat does notm ake them cr edi bl e. B . R ebut t abl e Pr es um pt i on E s t r ada- L ozano c l ai m s affor di ng a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o s ent ence s w i t hi n t he gui del i ne r ange i s unw arr ant ed and i n confl i ctw i th B ooker . Att h e s a me tim e h e re c o g n iz e s o u r c o n tr a ry p re c e d e n t. Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054- 55. T he-16-

ar gum enthas been pr es erved forfur therr evi ew , w hi ch i s E s tr ada- L ozano’ s s t at ed p u rp o se fo r ra isin g it. AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge