P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i 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. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51203 Su m m ar y Cal 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. AD RI AN RAN GE L, 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 W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8
- CR- 2 4 2
- ALL B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d G A R Z Aan d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * A d r ia n R a n g e l a p p e a ls fo llo w in gh is co n v i c t i o n fo rb e in gafe lo n in possessi on of

a fi rearm . H e a rgues that t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s 60- m on t h sentence w a s n o t r e a s o n a b le a n ds h o u ldb e v a c a te d . Adefen da n tm u stobj ectt o a sentence as u n reasona bl e i n t h e di st ri ctcourt in o r d e rto p r e s e r v e a s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s ch a lle n g e . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3d 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 5 9 (20 0 8 ). United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51203

2 R a n ge ldidn ot ob j ect t o h i s sen ten ce a s u n rea son a b l e in th e d i stri ct cou rt. A c c o r d in g ly , h is a r g u m e n t is re v ie w e dfo rp la in e r r o r . I d. T o show pl ai n err or, th e ap p ell a n t m u st sh ow a n erro r th a t i s cl ea r or obv i ou s a n d th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n t i a lr i g h t s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 5 3 8 F .3d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), c e r t. d e n ie d, 1 2 9 S . C t. 9 6 2 (2 0 0 9 ). If th e a p p e lla n t m a k e s s u c h as h o w in g , th is court ha s t he di s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c tt he e r r o rb uto nl y i f i ts e r i o us l y af

fe c t s t he fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. W h en t h e di st ri ctcourti m poses a sentence w i t h i n a properl y cal cul ated g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a n dg iv e s p r o p e rwe i g h tt o t h e Gu i d e l i ne s and t h e 1 8 U. S . C. § 355 3( a) fact ors, t h i s c ou rtgives “ great defer en ce t o t h at sentence an d w i l li n fer t hatt he j udg e has c o ns i de r e d al l t he fac t o r s f o r a fai r s e nt e nc e s e tf o r t h i n t he G u i d eli n es in li gh t of the sen ten ci n g co n sider a ti on s set ou t i n § 35 5 3 (a). ” Un i t ed St at e s v . Campo s - Mal do nado , 531 F . 3d 337 , 338 ( 5th C i r. ) (i n t erna lqu ota t i on m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d ), cer tden i ed , 129 S . C t . 328 ( 200 8) . “Adi scr et i on ary s e n te n c e i m p ose dw ith i na p rop erly c a lc u la te dg u id e lin e s ra n g e is p r e s u m p tiv e ly rea son a b l e.” I

d. The di s t r i c tc o ur tw as a ut ho r i z e d t o se nt e nc e R ang e lt o up t o 1 20 m o nt hs o f im p r is o n m e n t. S ee18 U . S. C . § 924( a) ( 2) . Th e co urtc ons i der ed t he § 3553( a) fact ors, p l aci n g em ph asi s on the seri ou sness of t h e of fen se, t h e need t o prot ect th e p u b lic , a n dth e n e e dfo re d u c a tio n a l tr a in in ga n dd r u gtr e a tm e n t. R ang el h a s s how n nei t hert hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s se nt enc e w as u n r e a s o n a b le n o rth a t t h e s e n te n c e w a s p la in lye r r o n e o u s . S ee CamposMal do nado , 5 3 1 F .3 da t 3 3 8 ; B ak er , 538 F . 3d at 332 . H i s s en t en ce i s t h eref ore AF F I RMED.