Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d 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- 40955 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. G U ILL E R M O JA IM E V ILL E G A S , al so kn ow n as G u i l l erm o V i l l egas , 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 S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 09- C R
- 451- 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: * G ui l l e r m o J ai m e Vi l l e ga s a ppe al s t he w i t hi n- G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e t hathe received . V i l l egas pleaded gu i l t y t o bei n g u n l aw f u l l y present in t h i s c ou n t ry a fte rh a v in gb e e n d e p o r te d , inv io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . H e a r g u e s th a t, in lig h t o f h is a r g u m e n ts fo ras e n te n c e b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no tg ive a de quat e reaso ns f o ri m po s i ng i t s s e nt e nc e . H e a l s o a r gue s t hatt he s e n t e n c e wa s g r e a t e rt h a n n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h e fa c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 7, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 40955

2 Vi l l e ga s ’ s s e nt e nc e i s r e vi e w e d f o rr e as o nab l e ne s s i n l i ghto f t he s e n te n c in gfa c to r s in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 3 , 3 6 0 (5t h C ir.) , cert . den i ed , 130 S . C t . 192 ( 200 9) . T h i s c ou rtf i rstdeter m i n es w het hert he di st r i c tc our tc om m i t t ed any si g nif i c a ntp r oc edur aler r or , i ncl udi ng, a m o n go th e rth in g s , n o t a d e q u a te lye x p la in in gth e s e n te n c e . G all v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 200 7 ) . I f t h ere i s no procedu ralerr or, t h i s c ou rtt h en
“ c ons i der [ s] t he s ubst ant ive r eas onabl enes s of the s en te nce i m pos ed underan a b u se-of- d i scre ti on stan d a rd . ” I d. V i l l egas’ s argum en t s abou tt h e procedu ral reasona bl en ess of h i s s en t en ce ar e una va i l i ng. The di s t r i c tco ur tl i s t e ne d t o Vi l l e ga s ’ s a r gum e nt s , a do pt e d t he P S R , a n dreje c te dV ille g a s ’ s re q u e s t fo rad o w n w a r dd e p a r tu r e . Se eUn i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F. 3d 554, 564- 66 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ;Uni t e d S t at e s v. R od rigu ez , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 1 9 , 5 2 5 -2 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U n lik e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in Un itedS ta tes v. Tisd a le , 264 F. A pp’ x 403, 412 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) , on w hi c h V i l l egas r e l i e s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti n t hi s ca s e ex pr e s s l y r e fe r e nc e d § 3 55 3( a) . Fur t he r , t he d istri ct cou rt’ s com m en ts sp ecif i ca l l y ad d ress ed V i l l eg a s’ s a rg u m en t th a t h is i n a b i l i t yt o ma k e al i fe i n Me x i c o wa s a fa c t o rt o c o n s i d e ri n g r a n t i n gh i m a sentence bel ow t h e G u i del i n es. Th u s, t h is co u rt i s s ati sf i ed that t h e di st ri ct c o ur tco ns i de r e d t he par t i e s ’a r gum e nt s a nd h adar e as o ne d b as i s f o re xe r c i s i ng its o w n le g a l d e c is io n m a k in g a u th o r ity . S ee R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 551 U . S. 338, 3 5 6 -5 7 (20 0 7 ). V i l l eg a s’ s ar gu m en t t h a t t h e facts a n d ci rcu m stan ces of h i s ca se re b u t its p r e s u m e ds u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s is a l s o u n a v a ilin gg iv e n th a t itis e s s e nt i al l y a r e ques tfo rt hi s t o c o ur tr e - w e i gh t he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s . “ [ T] he sentenci n g j u dg e i s i n a sup eri or posi t i on t o f i n d fac ts a n d ju dg e t h ei r i m port u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a) w i th re s p ect to a p a rti cu l a r d efen d a n t. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Campo s - Mal do nado , 5 31 F . 3d3 37 , 3 39 . ( 20 08 ) . Tha tt hi s c o ur t“ m i ght r e a s o n a b lyh a v e co n c lu d e dth a t a d i f fe r e n t s e n te n c e w a s a p p r o p r ia te is i n su ff i ci en t t o j u sti fy rev ersa lof th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” G a ll , 552 U . S. at51. Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 40955

3 V i l l egas’ s di sagreem en tw i th thepr o pri e ty o f thew ithi n- gui de li ne s s e nt e nc edoes n o t su ffic e to re b u t t h e p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s th a t a tt a c h e s to it. S ee G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3 da t 5 6 5 -6 6 ; R od rigu ez , 5 2 3 F .3 da t 5 2 6 . A F F IR M E D . Case: 09-40955 Document: 00511133580 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2010