Pursuant to5 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50325 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. T O N G C . PA R K , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R - 15- 1 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T on g C . P a rkap p ea l s th e se n ten c e im p ose df oll ow i n g h er g u i l ty p l ea to conspir acy t o tra ff

i c i n coun t erf

ei tgoods an d tr af

f i cki n g i n coun t erf

ei tgoods. S h e argu es t h a t (1 ) th e di st ri ctcourtm i sapp l i ed U . S . S . G § 2B 5. 3 an d ( 2) her w i t h i n - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e w a s s u b s t a n t iv e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . We a f f i r m. W e r e vi e w deno vo t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd a ppli c at i o n o f t he S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s a n dre v ie w its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rc l e a re r r o r . Un i t ed S ta tes v. Yi, 460 F . 3d 623, 635 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) . Based on e xper tt es t i m ony t hat United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50325 Document: 00511076667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 09- 50325

2 t h e i n f ri n gi n g i t em s w ou l d h ave ap pea red t o a reasonab l y i n f orm ed p u rchaser t o be i den t i calor sub st an t ia ll ye q u ival en tt o t h e i n f ri n gedi t em s, t h e rec ord s u p p o r ts aco n c lu s io n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t c le a r lye r rinu s in gth e re ta il v a lu e o f th e in fr in g e dit e m s t o ca lc u la te P a r k ’ s o ffe n s e le v e l. S ee§ 2B 5 . 3 , cm t. (n .2 (A)(i)); seeUn i t ed S t ate s v. Ja ckson , 4 5 3 F .3d 3 0 2 , 3 0 8 n .11 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e revi ew t h e substantive reasona bl en ess of P ark’ s s en t en ce f

or an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . G al lv . Uni t e d St at es , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 200 7) . Adi scr et i on ary s e n te n c eim p o s e dw i t h i n ap r o p e r l yc a l c u l a t e dg u i d e l i n e s r a n g e is p r e s u m p tiv e ly r e a s o n a b le . R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 51 U . S . 3 38, 3 47 ( 200 7) . T h e di st ri ctcourt ref u sed t o consi der a dow n w ard vari an ce f rom t h e ad vi sory ran ge becau se Pa rk h ad fail e d t o he e d r e pe at e d w ar ni ngs by l aw e nf o r c e m e nt r e ga r di ng h er tr a ffic k in ginco u n te r fe it g o o d s . S ee1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) (A) . “ [T] he s e nt e nc i ng j u dg e i s i n a s u peri or posit i on t o f i n d fact s and j u dg e t h ei r i m port u n der § 3 5 5 3 (a) w i th resp 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 - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 9 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 328 ( 200 8) . Pa rk’ s di sagreem en tw i t h t h e propri et y of t h e sentence i m posed does n ot suff i ce t o rebut t h e presum pti on of reasonab l en ess t h at atta ch e s t o a w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . Cf . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F. 3d 554, 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 1 9 , 5 2 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (20 0 8 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50325 Document: 00511076667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010