### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50218 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. G U S T AV O C A L D E R O N -G A R C IA , a ls o k n o w n a s E fr e n C h a v e z Q u ir o z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant C ons ol i dat ed w i t h 09- 50230 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. GUST AVO CA LDER ON- GARCIA, 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 ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N os . 3: 07- C R
- 800- 1, 3: 08- C R
- 2834- 1 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50218 c/w 09- 50239

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 exceptunder the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 P E R C U R IA M: * D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t G u stav o C a l d ero n -G a rcia p l ea d ed gu i l ty to att em pti n g t o reentert h e U n i t ed S t ates u n l aw f u l l y af t er r em oval, i n vi ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 13 2 6 . T h e d i st ri ctcourtsentenced h i m t o 21 m on t h s of i m pri so nm entf

ortha t of

fens e. Cal der on- G ar c i a al sopl eade d t r ue t o a n al l egati on t h at he vi ol ated his sup ervi sed rel ease t erm i m posedi n conn ect i on w ith a p rev i ou s i l l eg a l ree n try con victi on . T h e dist ri ct cou rt rev ok ed h is su p erv i sed releas e a n dsen ten ced h i m to a 1 4 -m on th ter m o f i m p ri son m en t, to r u n c o n s e c u t iv e l yt o t h e 2 1 - mo n t h t e r m. Cal de r o n- G ar c i a as s e r t s t hati m po s i ng hi s r e voc at i o n s e nt e nc e t o r un consecutivel y t o hi s s en t en ce f or hi s at t em pted i l l egal- reentry of fen se r esul t ed i n an un reasona bl e sentence. H e argu es t h at hi s 14- m on t h con secutive sentence w as gr eat ert han nece ss ar y t o a c h i ev e the go al s of s ent enc i ng s etouti n 18 U . S. C. § 3 55 3. H e c o nt e nds t hatal e s s e rs e nt e nc e w o ul d h ave be e n s uf f i c i e nt p u n is h m e n t a n dw o u ldh a v e m o r e a c c u r a te lyre fle c te dth e s ig n ific a n c e o f h is vi o l at i o n o f

t he co ur t ’ s t r us t , not i f yi ng t hathe ha d a l r e ad y be e n pu ni s he d a tt he t o p o f t h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e f o r h i s r e e n t r y o f

fe n s e . He a r g u e s t h a t b e c aus e t he sent e n ce w as greatert h an necessary, i tw as un reasona bl e an d sh ou l d be va cat ed becau se t h e sentence overst ates t h e seri ou sness of h i s vi ol ati on . H e al so argues th a t t h e s e n te n c e fa ile dto re fle c t h is p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s ta n c e s re g a r d in gh is de s i r e t o b e w i t h hi s fam i l y andhi s s i c k s o n. C al deron
- G arci a did n otob j ectt o t h e un reasona bl en ess of t h e i m posi t i on o f a c o n s e c u t iv e s e n t e n c e in th e d is t r ic tc o u r t , s o w e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s a c tio n s fo rp la in e r r o ro n ly . S ee P u cket t v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. C t . 1423, 1428- 2 9 (2 0 0 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3 d3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt. d enie d , 128 S. C t . 2959 ( 2008) . To s how pl ai n er r or , t he appell antm usts how anN o. 09- 50218 c/w 09- 50239

3 e r r o rth a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s t a n tia l rig h ts . Un i t ed S ta tes v. B ak er , 5 3 8 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S. Ct . 962 ( 200 9) . If

the ap pel l an tm ak es su ch a show i n g, w e h ave the dis cret i on t o cor rect th e e r r o r , b u t o n lyif it s e r i o u s l ya ffe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Id . T h e rec ord show s t h at th e di st ri c tc o ur tc o nsi dered the ad vi sory gui del i n es r anges f orea c h se nt enc e. A l t hough t he di st r i c tcour tdi d n otexpl i c i t l y s t at e t hat i tw as c o ns i de r i ng t he § 3 55 3 fac t o r s , t he se nt e nc i ng t r ans c r i ptre f l e c t s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d Cal de r o n- G ar c i a’ s e xt e ns ive c r i m i nalh i s t o r y andt he factt h at pri or l en i en tsentences had not det erred h i m . T h e rec ord al so i n di cat es t h at th e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered C al deron
- G arci a’ s hi st ory an d cha ract eri st i cs a n dth e n e e df

o rth e s e n te n c e to a c t a s ad e te r r e n t, a s s e t fo r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) . T h e for egoi n g an al ysi s con f irm s that t h e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered t h e fa cto rs s etf

ort h i n § 3553 ( a) w h en exerci si n g i t s di scr et i on t o i m pose c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s . S e e 1 8U.S .C . § 3 5 8 4 (a ) a n d(b ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. G on zalez , 250 F. 3d 923, 929- 30 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 1 ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to i m po s e c o ns e c ut ive s e nt e nc e s a c c o r ds w i t h t he r e c o m m e nda t i o n s e tf o r t h i n t he G u id e lin e s . S eeU . S . S . G . § 7B 1. 3(f ) (p. s. ) ; § 7B 1. 3 com t . n. 4. Th e di st ri ctcourt di d n otpl ai n l y err. AF F I RMED.