Pursuant to 5 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. 08- 50995 Su m m ar y Cal 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. RA FAE L OR LAND O MAR I NER O- RE VE L O 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 SDC N o . 2 : 0 8 - CR- 6 - ALL B e fo r e D AV IS , G A R Z A , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R afaelO r l ando M ar i ner o- R eve l o (M ar i ner o) pl eade d gu i l t y t o the c harge of be i ng an al i en found unl aw f ul l y i n t he U ni t ed Stat es foll ow i ng a pr i orr em oval andr e c e ive d as e nt e nc e o f 72 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n. H e as s e r t s t hatt he s e nt e nc e he r e c e iv e dis s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le . M ar i ne r o c o nt e nds t hathi s s en t enc e i s unr e as o nab l e b e c aus e t he appl i c abl e g ui del i ne, U . S. S. G . § 2L1. 2, w as notc r eat ed ba sed on em pi r i c al e v id e n c e a n dd o u b le -c o u n te dh is p r io rcr im e o f v io le n c e . B e c a u s e M a r in e r o d id United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50995

2 n otchal l en ge t h e reasonab l en ess of hi s s en t en ce on t h is g ro u n d i n t h e di st ri ct c o u r t, w e re v i e w th is a p p e lla te a r g u m e n t fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. B a ker , 5 3 8 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 129 S . C t . 9 6 2 (20 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 ), cer t . den i ed , 128 S . C t . 295 9 ( 200 8) . H e ha s not est abli shed t h at th e di st ri ctcourtpl ai n l y erred b yre ly in go n § 2 L 1 .2 to im p o s e h i s s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. CamposMaldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 8 -3 9 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ). M a ri n er o also m a i n tain s th a t t h e se n ten ce w a s gre a ter th a n n ee d ed to ac c om pl i sh the go al s of s ent en ci ng l i st ed i n 18 U . S. C . §3 553( a) . H e no t es t hat he r e t ur ne d t o t he U ni t e d St at e s t o f i nd w o r k and r e c o nne c tw i t h hi s fam i l y and t h at hi s pri or c ri m i n alhi st ory w as cau sed by a h i st ory of al cohol i sm . M ari n ero f urt herc ont ends t hathi s of fens e w as noti nhere nt l y evil and “ w as , atbo t t om , an in te r n a tio n a l tr e s p a s s .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e a r dM a r in e r o ’ s a llo c u tio n a b o u t h is reasons f

or r et u rni n g an d h i s probl em s w i t h al coholbu tel ect ed to i m pose a s e nt e nc e w i t hi n t he a ppli c ab l e r ang e . Thec o ur t ’ s st atem e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ng ref l ect t h e court’ s concerns abou t t h e severit y of M ari n ero’ s pri or of fen ses. M ar i ne r o ha s no ts ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n i n s e l e c t i ng as e n te n c e o r , co n s e q u e n tly , th a tt h e w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e im p o s e dis u n r e a s o n a b le . S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 4 35 F. 3d5 51 , 5 54 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) . Cons e que nt l y, t he j udg m e nt o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.