Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should 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- 50667 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. JO S E M A N U E L O L IV O

- S A LA Z A R , al so kn ow n as Jose M an u elO l ivo- S al azar, al soknow n as Jos e M anuelR ent er i a , 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. 2: 08- C R

- 1198- 1

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jose O l ivo- S al azar pl ed g u i l t y t o i l l egal reentry i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates fo llo w in gd e p o r ta tio n . See8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6
. O n a p p e a l, h e co n te n d s th a t h is
s e ve nt y- t w o m o nt h s e nt e nc e i s g r e at e rt han ne e de d t o s at i s f y fe de r als e nt e nc i ng g o a l s . Wed i s a g r e e a n dA F F I R M. Adi st ri ctcourtm ay i m pos e th re e ty pes of sentences: “ ( 1) a sentence
w i t hi n a pr ope r l y c al c ul at ed G u i d eli n e range; ( 2) a s ent enc e thati ncl udes an United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April20, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50667 Document: 00511085228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010N o. 09- 50667

2 u pwar d o rdo w nw ar d d e pa r t ur e a s a l l o w e d b y t he G ui de l i ne s , w hi c h sentence i s al so a G u i del i n e sentence; or ( 3) a non - G u id e li n e sentence w h i ch i s eit h er h i gh er orl ow er th a n the releva n t G u id e lin e s en ten ce.” Uni t e d S t at e s v. T ze p -Mejia , 461 F .3d 522 , 525 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. Sen t en ci n g deci si on s are o r d in a r ilyre v ie w e dfo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Rowan , 530 F .3d 3 7 9 , 3 8 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e di st ri ctco u rtdi d n otcl assi f y O l ivo- S al azar’ s above-G u i del i n es
s e n t e n c e a s e i t h e rad e p a r t u r e o rav a r ia n c e . H o w e v e r , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
s t a t e m e n tth a tt h e a d v is o r yr a n g e w a s in a d e q u a t e in v ie w o f O liv o -S a la z a r ’s hi st or y o f

pr ogr es sively m or e s er i ous c r i m es i ndi c at es t hatth e co urtw as de pa r t i ng pur s uantt o U

. S. S. G

. § 5 K 2. 0( a) , w hi c h a ut ho r i z e s ade pa r t ur e if t he court f i n ds an “ agg ravati n g circum st an ce, of a ki n d, or to a degree, not
a d eq u a tel y ta k en i n to c o n s id e r a tion bythe S en ten ci n g C om m i ssion

. . . . ” C f. Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 5 5 3 F .3d 3 8 0 , 3 9 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e f i rstst ep i n reasonab l en ess revi ew i s en suri n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourt d i d n ot com m i t sign i fi ca n t p roce d u ra l erro r. R o w an , 530 F. 3da t3 81
. I f t he
s e nt e nc e i s pr o c e dur all y s o und, t he a ppe l l at e c ou rtm us tt he n c o ns i de rt he
sen ten ce’ s “su b stan tive rea son a b l en ess . ” Id

. G iven tha tO l ivo- S al azar does n ot q u e s tio n th e p r o c e d u r a l s o u n d n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e , h o w e v e r , w e n e e do n ly consi der t h e sentence’ s s u bstantive reasona bl en ess. B ecau se O l ivo- S al azar di d n otspecif y w h y h e obj ect ed to t h e sentence i m posed , t h ere m ay be som e b asi s to deb ate w h et h er h e is en t i t l ed t o revi ew f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n o rm e r e lyfo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 505 F .3 d3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B u t a s O liv o -S a la z a ris u n a b le t o s h o w th a t h is sentence i s i n f

i rm ev en u n der an a bu se of d i scr et i on st an da rd, i ti s un n ecess ary to d e c id e w h ic h s ta n d a r da p p lie s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 523 F. 3d 519, 525 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). I f a di st r i c tc our tdet er m i nes “t hata se nt enc e w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange i s n ot l en gthy enou gh t o serve t h e obj ect ives of sentenci n g” i n a parti cul ar case, Case: 09-50667 Document: 00511085228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010N o. 09- 50667

3 it m a ys e n te n c e a b o v e th a t r a n g e . Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 517 F. 3d 801, 809 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). F o ras e n te n c e t h a td e p a r ts p u r s u a n t t o th e G u id e lin e s , th is
c o ur t i nfe r s t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c o ns i de r e d a l lt he fac t o r s ne c e s s ar y unde rt he G u id e l i n e s fo rafa irs e n te n c e a n dw ill ra r e lyco n c lu d e th a t s u c h as e n te n c e is
u n r e a s o n a b le

. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Raj w ani , 4 7 6 F .3d 2 4 3 , 2 4 9 (5t h C ir.) , m o dif i e d o n o t he rg ro unds , 4 7 9 F .3d 9 0 4 (5t hC ir. 2 0 0 7 ). In l i gh tof

t h e escal ati n g seri ou sness of O l ivo- S al azar’ s c ri m i n albeh avior , and givi ng “ due def

er enc e t o the di st r i c tcour t ’ s”w ei ghi ng of the Sec t i on 3553( a) fa c to r s w h e n s e n te n c in gO liv o -S a la z a ra b o v e h is G u id e lin e s ra n g e , G a ll , 552 U .S . a t 5 1 , n e ith e rth e fa c t o f th e d e p a r tu r e fr o m th a t r a n g e n o r th e e x te n t o f it is u n r e a s o n a b le

. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 440 F

. 3d 704, 707 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (not i ng t hatbo t h t he d ecisi on t o de par tand t he e xt entof a de par t ure m ustbe revi ew ed). O l ivo- S al azar ’ s se ven t y- t w o m on t h sentence i s w el lw i t h i n t h e t en y e a rs ta tu to r ym a x im u m te r m . S ee 8 U

. S. C

. § 1326(b) ( 1)

. W e haveappr ove d far gr eat eru pw ar d d epar t ure s t han t he addi t i onaln i ne m ont hs— w hi c h i s l es s t han f i f t ee n per c ent gr eat er t han t he t op of hi s G ui del i nes r ange— t hatO l ivo- Sal azar
r e c e iv e d

. S e e, e.g ., Un i t ed S t ate s v. D aven port , 2 8 6 F .3d 2 1 7 , 2 2 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50667 Document: 00511085228 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2010