### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41308 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f- A pp el l ee v. T O M A S PA B L O -G O N Z A L E Z , a ls o k n o w n a s T o m a s P a b lo G o n z a le z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

C on soldiated w i th N o. 08- 41318 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f- A pp el l ee v. T O M A S PA B L O - G O N Z A L E Z , al so kn ow n as Jua n G arci a- G on zal ez, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8 - CR- 6 0 3 - ALL U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8 - CR- 1 1 7 4 - ALL United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Aug ust7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o . 0 8 -4 1 3 0 8 c/w N o. 08- 41318

P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e court h as deter m i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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.

2 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * I n t h e s e c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l s , To m a s Pab l o - Go n z a l e z c h a l l e n g e s ( 1 ) t he s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is c o n v ic tio n fo rb e in ga n a lie n u n la w fu llyfo u n din t h e U n i t ed Stat es af t er dep ort ati on , 8 U . S . C . § 132 6; an d ( 2) t h e se n t en ce i m posed fo ll ow i n g t h e revocat i on of a previ ou sly i m posedt erm of sup ervi sed rele a se , 18 U . S . C . § 3583 ( e) ( 3) . Pa bl o- G on zal ez argues that th e di st ri ctcourt c om m i t t ed s i gni f

i c antpr oc edur aler r orw i t h re spe c tto bot h se nt enc es by i m posi n g w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ces w i t h ou tadeq u a te expl an ati on or c ons i der at i on o f

t he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s. Pabl o- G onzal ez c onc ede s t hat h e di d not rai se t h ese argu m en t s i n t h e di st ri ct court w i t h respectto ei t h er s e n te n c e , b u t h e s e e k s t o p r e s e rv e fo rr e v ie w h is c o n te n tio n th a t r e v ie w s h o u ld n otbe l i m i t ed to pl ai n err or. B ecau se Pa bl o- G on zal ez di d n otr ai s ethe s ea r gum en t s i n t h e di st ri ctcourt w ith re s p e c t t o e ith e rs e n te n c e , w e r e v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e sv. Mon d rago n -San t i ago, 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led (Ju n e 24, 200 9) ( N o. 08-11099 ) . To sh ow pl ai n err or, P ablo- G on zal ez m u stshow a n e r r o rt h a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 5 3 8 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), c e r t. d e n ie d, 1 2 9 S . C t. 96 2 ( 20 09 ) . Thi s c o ur tw i l lc o r r e c ts uc h a n e r r o ro nly if its e r i o us ly af

fect s t he fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. P ablo- G on zal ez does not expl ai n how eit h er sentence m i gh t h ave d if fered hadt he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o vi de d am o r e t ho r o ughe xp l ana t i o n f o rit s s e nt e nc i ng ch oices. E ve n if P a b l o-G on za l ez h a s i d en tifi edc le a ro r ob viou s erro rs w i th r e s pe c tt o t h e a deq u ac y o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e xp l ana t i o n o f r e as o ns f

o rt heN o . 0 8 -4 1 3 0 8 c/w N o. 08- 41318

3 s e n te n c e s im p o s e d , P a b lo -G o n z a le z ca n n o t s h o w th a t t h e e r r o r s a ffe c te dh is sub st an t i alri gh t s because n ot h i n g i n th e rec ord sugg est s th at hi s s en t en ces w o ul d ha veb e e n dif

fe r e ntha d the c o ur tpr o vi de d m o r e e xt e ns ive r e as o ns f o rt he s e n te n c e s im p o s e d . S ee Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F . 3dat 364 - 65. H e argu es th a t his su b stan ti a lri gh ts w ere affectedbe ca u se th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s fa i l u re to exp l ai n w h y i trej ect ed h i s non f rivol ou s argum en t s f or l ess er s en t en ces “r e nde r e d i ti m po s s ibl e f o rt he c o ur to f

a ppe al s t o c o nduc ta ny m e ani ngf ul sub st an t ive reasona bl en ess rev i ew . ” Th i s argum en ti s f orecl osed w i t h res pect to w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . S ee Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d at 365. B e c a u s e P a b lo -G o n z a le z h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e e r r o r s , if a n y , a ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts , h e h a s n o t s h o w n p la in e r r o r . Se ei d. a t 3 6 4 -6 5 ; B ak er , 538 F . 3 da t3 3 2 . T h e j u d g me n t s o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta r e A F F I RMED.