Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt 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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41005 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. RE FU G I O J AV I ER D E LAG AR ZA- VA LLE S , 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 S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 07- C R
- 456- 1 B ef ore W IE N E R , C L E M E N T , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R ef u gi o JavierD e L a G arza- V al l es c h al l en ges t h e sen te n ce i m posed f o l l o w i ng hi s g ui l t y pl e a c o nvi c t i o n o f b e i ng an al i e n unl awf ul l y f o und i n t he U ni t ed St at es af

t erdepo r t at i on, havi ng bee n pre vi ous l y c onvi c t ed of an agg ravated fel on y, i n vi ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 132 6( a) , (b) . D e L a G ar z a a rg u es t h at hi s s en t en ce i s procedurally u n reasona bl e becau se t h e di st ri ctcourtfai l ed t o pe r m i tc o uns e lt o a r gue f o ra n a ppr o pr i at e s e nt e nce a nd fai l e d t o pr o vi de s u f f ic ie n t r e a s o n s . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 41005

2 u n re a so n a b le in li g h t of G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 (20 0 7 ), and Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 85, 128 S . C t . 558 ( 200 7) . H e f u rt h er c o n t e n d s t h a th i s s e nt e n c e i s s u b s t a n t iv e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e U. S . S . G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) (A) (i) ( 2006) i s f l aw ed as i tw as notbas ed o n em pi r i c aldat a. D e L a G arza di d n otpreserve t h ese obj ect i on s i n t h e di st ri ctcourt . R evi ew is th e r e fo r e fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 3 5 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Mal do nado , 5 3 1 F . 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 12 9 S . C t. 32 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ). D e L a G a rza “m u st de m on strate (1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) t h a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s , a n d (3 ) th a t a ffe c ts s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts .” Campo s - Mal do nado , 531 F . 3d at 339. “ If t h ese c on di t i on s are m et , t h i s c ou rt m ay exerci se i t s di scr et i on to correc tthe errorif itseri ou sl y af

fect s t h e fai rness, i n teg ri ty, or p u b l i c rep u tati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” I d. T h e di st ri ct court provi ded defen se c ou n selam pl e opp ort u n i t y t o add ress t h e argu m en t s t h at c ou n seldeem ed ap propri ate. A l so, th e f orm al i st i c proc edu re sug gest ed by D e L a G arza’ s argu m en t s i s n ot prescr ibed by the au t h ori t i es up on w h i ch D e L a G a rza r e lie s . S ee F ED . R. C RIM . P . 3 2 (i)(4 )(A)(i); R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 51 U . S. 3 38 , 1 27 S. Ct . 2 45 6 ( 20 07 ) ; a nd G a ll , 1 2 8 S. C t . at596. A d d itio n a lly , n o th in gin t h e r e c o r d in d ic a te s t h a t D e L a G a r z a ’ s s e n te n c e w o u ld h ave been di f

ferent i f th e c ou rtha d p rovi ded m ore expl an ati on of i t s c h osen s e n te n c e . S e eMo n d r ago n -S a n tiago , 5 6 4 F .3 d a t3 6 3 -6 4 . D e L a G a r z a ’s ar gum e ntt hathi s se nt e nc e i s pr o c e dur al l y unr e as o nab l e t hus do e s no tpr o vi de a b a sis forre li e f. D e La G ar za’ s ar gum entr egar di ng G a lla nd Ki m b ro ugh does not es t abli sh t h at hi s s en t en ce i s su bstantivel y u n reasona bl e, a s t h e rec ord does not suggest t h at t h e di st ri ct court w i shed t o i m pose a dif ferent s en t en ce but f el tconst rai n ed b yth is c o u r t’s p r e c e d e n t. S ee Campo s - Mal do nado , 531 F. 3d at338- 39. Fi nal l y, th is c o u r t h a s r eje c te d D e L a G a r z a ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t § 2 L 1 .2 is fla w e d . Se ei d. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.