P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51107 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. JOSE G U AD AL U PE CA RR I LLO

- PA LA CI O 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 th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8 - CR- 1 8 8 - ALL B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jose G u ad al u pe C arrill o- P al a cio s (C a rr illo) ap pea l s th e 70-m on thsentence i m po s e d up o n hi s g uil t y pl e a c o nvic t i o n f o r i l l e ga lr e e nt r y s ubs e que ntt o ha vi ng b e e n re m o v e d . S ee8 U . S. C. § 1 32 6. H e a r gue s t hathi s s e nt e nc e w i t hi n t he S en ten ci n g G u i d eli n es ran ge i s u n rea son a b l e i n l i gh t of h i s d iff i cu l t p a s t, h is genui ne at t em pt s t o r ehabil i t at e, and t he e f fec tt hati ncar c er at i on w oul d have on hi s w i fe a nd hi s i nfants on. H e a r gues t hatt he s enten ce w as gr eat ert han United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D June 22, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51107

2 n ecess ary t o f

u l f i l lt h e sentenci n g pu rpo ses of 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) . R el yi n g on Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 558, 574- 75 ( 2007) , C ar r i l l o a r gues t hat th e p r e s u m p t io n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s , see Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 435 F. 3d 551, 5 5 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), s h o u ldn o t a p p lyt o h is ille g a l re e n tr ys e n te n c e b e c a u s e it is n ot based on em pi ri caldata or experi en ce. H e argu es th at hi s c ri m i n alhi st ory w a s d o u b le -c o u n te db e c a u s e it w a s u s e dto d e te r m in e h i s o ffe n s e le v e l a n dh is c r im in a l h is to r yca te g o r y . D o u bl e coun t i n g i s not i m perm i ssibl e un l ess t h e G u i del i n es s o st ate. Uni t e d St at e s v. Cal ba t , 2 66 F. 3d3 58 , 3 64 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 1) . The s e nt e nc i ng tran script sh ow s th a t th e cou rt li sten edto a n dcon sider edC a rrill o’ s ar gu m en ts an d arti cul ated reasons f or r ej ect i n g t h ose argu m en t s an d i m posi n g a sentence a t th e b o tt o m o f th e a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e s ra n g e . S ee R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468- 69 ( 2007) . Th e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered the sentenci n g fact ors setf ort h i n 18 U . S . C . § 355 3( a) , incl u di n g C arril l o’ s h i st ory, hi s new m arri age, andhi s i nfant s o n and c o nc l ude d t hat a gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e w as s uf f i c i e ntb ut n o t g re a t e r th a n n e ce ss a ryto c o m p ly w ithth e p ro v ision s o f § 3 5 5 3 (a). A c c o r d in g ly , th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t su b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le . S ee, e. g. , Un i t ed St at e sv . Campo s - Maldo nado , 531 F. 3d 337, 339 ( 5t h C i r. 2008) . Carr i l l o has fai l ed t o de m ons t r at e thatt he di st r i c tc our tabus ed it s di sc r et i on i n i m pos i ng a w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S ee G all v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) . H is s e n te n c e is th e r e fo r e A F F IR M E D .