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 shedan 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10796 Su m m ar y Cal 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. FRANCI S CO OCAM PO- M EJ IA 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 th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 6 - CR- 2 5 1 - ALL B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Fr anc i s c o O c am po - M ej i a ( O c am po ) a ppe al s thes e nt e nc e i m po s e d b y t he di st ri ctcourtf

ol l ow i n g h i s gu i l t y pl ea convic t i on f or on e coun t of

il l egal reentry af t e rde po r t at i o n i n v i o l at i o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6( a) . Fo l l o w i ng a he ar i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tv ar i e d f r o m t he g ui de l i ne s e nt e nc i ng range o f 3 3- 41 m o nt hs a nd sentenced O cam po to 75 m on t h s i n p ri son f ol l ow ed byt h ree years of sup ervi sed r e l e as e . Oca m po o bj e c t e d t o t he r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he sen t e nc e a nd f i l e d a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10796

2 tim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l. O n a p p e a l, O c a m p o a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t a c c o u n t fo rafa c to rth a t s h o u ld hav e r e c e ive d s i gnif i c antw e i ght(hi s c ul t ur ala s s i m i l at i o n) , g ive s s i gnif i c ant w ei gh tt o an i m proper fact or (h i s pri or arrest s) , a n d represents a cl ear err or of j u dg m en ti n bal an ci n g t h e sentenci n g fact ors. Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 220 ( 200 5) , sentences are r e v i e we df

o rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n li g h to f t h e s e n t e n c i n gfa c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F . 3 d51 1 , 51 8 -19 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 5 ). In c o nduc t i ng a re as o nab l e ne s s r e vi e w , a n a ppe l l at e c o ur tm us tf i r s tde t e r m i ne w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e da n ys ig n ific a n t p r o c e d u r a le r r o r . G al lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t . 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). If th e r e is n o p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r , th is court t h en “ consi der[ s] t h e substantive reasona bl en ess of t h e sentence i m posed u n d er a n ab u se-of- d i scre ti on stan d a rd . ” Id . I f t he s e nt e nc e i s o ut s i de t he gu i del i n es r an ge, t h i s c ou rt“ m ay con si der t h e ext en tof the d evi ati on , b u tm u st give du e defer en ce t o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t h at th e § 3553 ( a) fact ors, on aw h ole, j u stify the ex ten t of the va ri a n ce.” Id . T h e di st ri ctcourtherei n com m i t t ed n o procedu rale rror s. Th e court pr o pe r l y c al c ul at e d Oc am po ’ s g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r ang e , c o ns i de r ed t he § 3 55 3( a) s e nt e nc i ng fac t o r s , c o ns i de r e d nocl e ar l y e r r o ne o us fac t s , a nd a d e q u a te ly e x p la in e d th e r e a s o n s fo r th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . S eeG a ll , 12 8 S . C t. at59 7 . E vi denc e o f O c am po’ s c ul t uralas si m i l at i on w as c ons i der ed at sentenci n g . T h i s c ou rt , how ever, ha s hel d that “ [w ] h i l e cul t u ralassi m i l ati on m aybe con sider edas a m i ti ga ti n g facto r. . . t h ere i s n o req u i rem en t th a t a sen ten ci n g co u rt m u stac c ordit dispo sit ive w eigh t. ” Uni t e d S t at e sv. L opez- V elasqu ez , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 0 4 , 8 0 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 625 ( 2008) (i n t erna l cit ati on om i t t ed, em ph asi s i n ori gi n al) . T h u s, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot err i n bal an ci n g O cam po’ s c u l t u ralassi m i l ati on against ot h er § 355 3( a) fact ors. R egar di ng t he c our t ’ s c ons i der at i on o f O c am po’ s pri orar r es t s, c r i m i nal cond u ctnot resul t i n g i n acon vi ct i on m ay be con si dered b y t h e sentenci n g j u dg e.N o. 08- 10796

3 I d. As t he di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t ba s e O c am po ’ s s e nt e nc e o n hi s ar r e strec ord “stan d i n g a l on e,”the cou rt did n ot err in re l yin g o n O ca m p o’ s ar rests, i n p a rt, a s are a s o n fo rth e s e n te n c e v a r ia n c e . S eeid . Fi nal l y, t he di st r i c tcour tart i c ul at ed nu m er ous gro und s und er§ 3553( a) f o rt he upwar d v ar i anc e , t he no n- G ui de l i ne s s e nt en ce w as l e s s t han t he s t at ut o r y m ax i m um s e nt e nc e o f t w e nt y ye ar s und e r § 13 26 ( a) a nd (b) ( 2) , a nd the ex ten t of

the va ri a n ce is con sist en t w i tho th er sen ten ces a ff irm edbythis cou rt. S ee , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 4 4 0 F .3 d7 0 4 , 7 0 5 -0 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mej i a-Hu er ta , 4 8 0 F .3 d7 1 3 , 7 1 6 -2 0 , (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 128 S. C t . 295 4 ( 200 8) . I n l i gh tof t h e f oregoi n g, w e f

i n d th at t h e di st ri ctcourt d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n inim p o s in gO c a m p o ’ s s e n te n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.