T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J ER RY LUI S C RUZ- LOPE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50522 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 01 67 6-G T -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G or don T hom ps on, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 9, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F A R R IS , C L IF T O N , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jerry L u i s C ru z-L o p ez ap p eal s h i s ab o v e-G u i d el i n es sen t en ce o f 3 6 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t f

o ru s in g f

a ls e d o c u m e n ts to o b ta in e n try in to th e U n ite d S ta te s in 

# FI LED MA R 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1546( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291 a nd a f f i rm. T h e U n ite d S ta te s c h a r g e d C ru z w ith u n la w f u l e n try a f

te rd e p o r ta tio n in vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . §§ 1326( a ) a nd ( b) . I tthe n f i l e d a s upe r s e di ng i nf

orm a t i on c h a r g i n g Cru z w i th u s i n g f a l s e d o c u me n t s t o o b t a i n e n try i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 54 6(a) . C ruz pl ed gu i l ty t o the § 1 54 6(a) char ge. A pr oba t i on of

f i c e rpr e pa r e d a pr e s e nt e nc e r e por tde t a i l i ng C ruz ’ s l e ngthy cr i m i nal and i m m i grat i on hi st ory. C ruz had 21 cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, w hi ch tr a ns l a t e d t o a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I

— the hi ghe s ti n the U . S . S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s t abl e . U . S . S . G . C h. 5, P t . A . T he G ui de l i ne s ’ r e c om m e nde d r a nge of im p r is o n m e n t w a s 1 8 to 2 4 m o n th s . See U . S . S . G . § 2 L 2. 2. T he pres ent ence re po rt then add re ss ed “ fa ct ors thatm ayw arra ntdeparture. ” I tno t ed thatC ruz “ w as ori gi nal l y c harged w i th a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6, and h ad he been conv i ct ed of tha tof f e ns e , hi s gui de l i ne r a nge of i m pr i s onm e ntw oul d ha ve be e n 77 t o 96 m on ths. ” I n cal cul at i ng thi s hypothet i ca l se nt ence , the pres ent ence re po rt appa r e nt l y r e l i e d on the a s s um pt i on tha tC ruz , i f he ha d be e n c onvi c t e d of a nd se nt ence d for vi ol at i ng § 1 32 6, w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a 16 -l evel enhancem entun der the unl a w f

ul e ntry G ui de l i ne f

orde por t a t i on a f

t e ra “ drug tr a f

f i c ki ng” c onvi c t i on. See U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( I) . T he re po rtre com m ended a four-pointup w ar d3

de pa r tur e f

orunc ha r ge d c onduc tunde rG ui de l i ne s § 5K 2. 21, r e s ul t i ng i n a r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e o f

3 0 to 3 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the j udge s t a t e d tha the ha d c ons i de r e d the d o cu m en tfrau d G u i d el i n e’ s reco m m en d ed ran g e, th e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, and al l the fa ct ors di sc usse d i n the pres ent ence re po rti n d et erm i ni ng the se nt ence . H e e xpr e s s e d a gr e e m e ntw i th the r e por t ’ s upw a r d de pa r tur e r e c om m e nda t i on. T he gove rnm e ntthe n c l a r i f

i e d f orthe j udge tha tthe doc um e nt s j us t i f y i ng the 16- poi nt e nha nc e m e nti n the hy pothe t i c a l § 1326 s e nt e nc e w e r e nota va i l abl e . T he pr oba t i on offi ce r i n turn exp l ai ned thatthe j ud ge coul d al t ernat i vel y a chi eve the abov eG ui del i nes s ent ence throu gh an up w ar d v ar i ance . T he j udge s a i d, “ A l l r i ght , ” a nd the n r e a d outl oud the s e c t i ons of the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por ts t a t i ng tha tthe § 1546 of f e ns e w a s C ruz ’ s s e c ond c ons e c ut i ve f e de r a l of f e ns e ; tha the c om m i tt e d i tw i thi n da y s of hi s r e l e a s e f

r om pr i s on; tha the ha d 21 c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s ; tha the ha s a hi s t ory of c om m i tt i ng a s e r i ous offe nse, bei ng ordered re m ov ed, and then com m i tt i ng another s er i ou s off ense ; that the j ust i ce sy st em has noti nst i l l ed i n C ruz an adequ at e l evel of det erre nce; and that the G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 18 t o 24 m onths di d notc aptur e the f ul l s c ope of

the offe nse a nd w as no tl i kel y t o m ee tthe § 3 55 3(a) obj ec t i ves. H e e xp re ss ed agre em entand o rder ed a f ou r- po i ntup w ar d d eparture a nd a 36-m on th sent ence .4

O n appe a l , C ruz a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pr oc e dur a l e rr orby m aki ng re fe re nce t o, and g i vi ng “ un du e w ei gh tt o, ” the hypo thet i ca l un l aw ful entry s e nt e nc e of

77 t o 96 m onths , w hi c h w a s ba s e d on “ uns uppor t e d a s s um pt i ons , ” a nd w hi c h the c our t“ us e d t o . . . j us t i f y a s ubs t a nt i a l upw a r d de pa rtur e ” f r om the do cum entfr aud G ui del i ne ra ng e. W e do n otre vi ew the ki nd of error C ruz a l l eges here as partof ou r r evi ew for pr oc e dur al error. W here , as here , “ a di stri ctcourthas fr am ed i t s a nal ys i s i n t erm s of ado w nw ar d o r upw ar d d eparture, w e w i l l tre atsuch s o - c a lle d d e p a r tu r e s a s a n e x e r c is e o f p o s t- B oo ke rdi sc re t i on t o sent ence a de f e nda ntout s i de of

the appl i c abl e [ G ] ui de l i ne s r a nge , ” w hi c h i s “ s ubj e c tt o a un i t ary r evi ew for [ subst ant i ve] re as on abl enes s, no m att erho w the di stri ctcourt styl es i t s s ent enci ng deci si on . ” U ni ted States v. Moh am ed , 4 5 9 F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; see a l

so U n i ted S ta tes v. L i ch ten b erg , 63 1 F . 3d 10 21 , 10 27 n. 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . E llis , 6 4 1 F .3 d 4 1 1 , 4 2 0 - 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. T an ke rs l ey , 53 7 F . 3d 11 00 , 11 13 -14 (9th C i r. 20 08 ).

“ [ T ] he s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of a s e nt e nc e — w he the robj e c t e d t o ornot atse nt enci ng — i s r evi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. A u tery , 555 F . 3d 864, 871 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . “ F ora non- G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , w e a r e t o ‘ gi ve due defe re nce t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on thatthe § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, on a w ho l e, j u s t i f y th e e x t e n to f

th e v a r i a n c e , ’ ” a n d “ [ w] e m a y n o tr e v e r s e j u s tb e c a u s e we5

thi nk a di ff

er entse nt ence i s app ropri at e. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 993 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng G al l v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7)). I n de t e rm i ni ng a s e nt e nc e ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s , w e c ons i de r“ the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the de gr e e of va r i a nc e f

ora s e nt e nc e i m pos e d out s i de the [G ] ui del i nes r ange. ” Id . “A s u b s ta n tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e is o n e th a t is

‘ s uf f i c i e nt , butnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry ’ t o a c c om pl i s h § 3553( a ) ( 2) ’ s s e nt e nc i ng go al s. ’ ” U

n i te d S ta te s v . Cr o we , 563 F . 3d 969, 977 n. 16 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng § 3 55 3(a) ). A s i n E llis , he r e , “ [ u] l t i m a t e l y , [ C ruz ] ’ s . . . obj e c t i ons t o the r e a s ons the di s tr i c tc our tga ve f

or‘ de pa r t i ng’ upw a r d a r e be s i de the poi nt . T he que s t i on f orour purpos e s i s w he the ra m ode r a t e l y above - G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e f ora de f e nda ntw ho” c om m i tt e d hi s s e c ond c ons e c ut i ve f e de r a l of f e ns e w i thi n da y s of

hi s r e l e a s e f

r om fe dera l pri son, w ho has ahi st ory of c om m i tt i ng se ri ou s off ense s a nd bei ng ordered re m ov ed, on l y t o b e a rr es t ed on another s er i ou s off ense , w ho had 2 1 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s— w el l abov e the nu m ber needed t o p uthi m i n the hi gh es tcr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory— and i n w ho m the cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em has e vi dent l y notye t i ns t i l l e d a n a de qua t e l e ve l of de t e rr e nc e “ i s r e a s onabl e unde rthe br oa d di s c r e t i on af forded the di stri ctcourt . ” E llis , 641 F . 3d a t423. I ti s . T he di s tr i c tj udge di d not abus e hi s di s c r e t i on i n c onc l udi ng tha ta s hor t e rt e rm of 18 t o 24 m onths w oul d not6

m e e tthe s e nt e nc i ng obj e c t i ve s of § 3553( a )

— s pe c i f

i c a l l y , “ t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf or th e l a w ” a n d “ t o a f

f o r d a d e q u a t e d e t e rr e n c e t o c r i mi n a l c o n d u c t . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . A r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t g e n e r a te “a d e f in ite a n d f irm c o n v ic tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d a c le a re rr o ro f ju d g m e n t in the concl usi on i tre ac hed u po n w ei gh i ng the re l evantfa ct ors. ” U ni ted Stat es v. A m ez cua-V

asqu ez , 5 6 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . AF F I R ME D.