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 UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10295 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. J E S U S R E S E N D IZ -M A R T IN E Z , a ls o k n o w n a s J e s u s R e s e n d iz -R a m ir e z , 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 N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R

- 173- 1
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jesus Res e ndi z - M ar t i ne z (Res e ndi z ) a ppe al s t he 4 8 m o nt h s e nt e n ce i m po s e d f

o l l o w i ng hi s gu i l t y pl e a c o nvi c t i o n f o ri l l e ga lr e e nt r y f o l l o w i ng dep ort ati on , in v i ol ati on of 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1326 ( a) an d (b) ( 1) ( 2)
. R esend i z chal l en ges t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s u p wa r d l yd e p a r t i n gfr o m cr i m i n a lh i s t o r yc a t e g o r yVI pu rsuan tto U
. S
. S
. G
. § 4A 1. 3( a) , p . s. , a rguing that t h e deci si on t o dep artw as not j us t i f i e d b y t he fac t s i n hi s c as e a nd t hatt he c o ur tfai l ed t o f o l l o w t he i n crem en t alapp roach i n deter m i n i n g t h e ext en tof dep art u re.

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10295 Document: 00511006288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2010N o. 09- 10295

2 W e ne e d n o t r e solve t h e parti es’di spu t e over t h e st an da rd of revi ew g o v e r n in gR e s e n d iz ’s f i r s ti s s u e b e c a u s e u n d e re it h e rs t a n d a r d , R e s e n d iz ’s a r g u m e n t fa ils
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n dth a t th e c r im in a l h is to r ys u b s ta n tia lly und er r epr es ent ed Rese ndi z’ s se r i ous c r i m i nalhi st or y andt he l i ke l i ho o d t hathe w i l lcom m i t o th er c ri m es. H ere and bel ow , R esend i z chal l en gedonl y t h e f i rst pa rtof t h at f i n di n g. U n der § 4A 1. 3, a di st ri ctcou rt m a yup w ardl y dep arton e i t he rb as i s . M o r e o ve r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e as o ns f o rde pa r t ur e a dv anc e d t he obj ec tive s of se nt enc i ng s etf or t h i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) ( 2) and ar e j ust i f i ed by th e fa c ts o f th is ca s e . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 442 F. 3d 345, 347 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Res e ndi z ’ s a r gum e nt s b e l o w di d no tpr e s e r ve h i s arg um e ntt hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed by fai l i ng t o f ol l ow i ng t he i ncr em ent alappr oac h re qui r ed by § 4A 1. 3( a)(4 )(B ). T h i s i s t h e t yp e of err or t h at, if

proper obj ect i on ha d been
m a d e , th e d is tr ic t co u r t co u ld h a v e co r r e c te d
. S ee P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S
. C t. 14 2 3 , 14 2 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t ed St at e s v . O c ana , 204 F
. 3d 585 , 589 ( 5th C i r. 20 00 )
. The e r r o r he r e i s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s fail ur e t o “ s ho w i t s w o r k” i n a r r ivi ng att he 4 8 m o nt h s e nt e nc e . Res e ndi z do e s no t ar gue , and t he r e i s no t hi ng i n t he r e c o r d t o sho w , t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw o ul d ha ve , o rc o ul d no tha ve , i m po s e d a le s s e rs e n t e n c e if

ith a de m p lo y e dth e in c r e m e n t a l a p p r o a c h . T h u s , R e s e n d iz ’s s u b s ta n t i a lr i g h t s w e r e n o t a ffe c te d
. S ee P u ck ett , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 1 4 3 1 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 4 8 9 F .3d 6 7 9 , 6 8 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10295 Document: 00511006288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2010