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- 40743 C onfer enc e 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. H I LA RI O SO TO

- H ER N AN D EZ 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 E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R
- 182- 1 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L LYan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * H i l ari o Soto- H erna n dez pleadedgu i l t y t o il l egal reentry af t er deportat i on i n v i o l at i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 32 6 andw as s e nt e nc e d t o 5 7 m o nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nt a n dt h r e e y e a r s o f

s u p e rv i s e dr e l e a s e . S o t o - He r n a n d e z a r g u e s f o rt h e f i r s tt i me o n a ppe alt hato uro pi ni o n i n Uni t e d St at e s v . Roj as - Luna , 522 F. 3d 502, 504- 06 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8) , c o m pe l s us t o vac at e hi s se nt e nc e . I n R o j as - Luna , w e he l d t hat t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s use of t h e factof

hi s 2006 rem oval t o i n crease h i s s en t en ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40743

2 b e y o n dth e s ta tu to r ym a x im u m s e n te n c e a llo w e du n d e r§ 1 3 2 6 (a ) w a s re v e r s ib le pl ai n err or because t h e factof t h e 200 6 rem oval h ad n ot been adm i t t ed byR oj asL u n ao rp r o v e n to aju r yb e y o n d are a s o n a b le d o u b t. 5 2 2 F .3 da t 5 0 6 -0 7 . W e det er m i ned t hatt he o nl y e vi denc e i n t he r ec or d t o s how w hen t he def endantw as r e m o ve d was a n uns upp o r t e d s t at e m e nti n t he pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t(PSR ) a nd t hatt he r e w as no e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d thatt he def e nda ntha d a gr e e d t o t he a c c u r a c yo f th is fa c t in th e P S R . Id . at507. T h e fact s i n Soto- H erna n dez’ s c ase are di st i n gu i sha bl e. Soto- H erna n dez af f i r m at ive l y ad m i t t e d i n hi s s t at e m e nto f fac t s i n s upp o r to f hi s pl e a ag r e e m e nt a n di n h i s o bj e c t i o n s t o t h e P S R t h a t h e wa s d e p o r t e d o n D e c e mb e r1 5 , 2 0 0 3 . H e c o n fi r m e dth is fa c ta th is s e n t e n c in gh e a r in g . “[ R ]e li a n c e o n ad e fe n d a n t ’s a d m i ssion of facts th a t are co n tain edi n the P S R i s p erm i ssible. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. R am i rez , 5 5 7 F .3 d2 0 0 , 2 0 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t p la in ly err i n rel yi n g on S ot o- H erna n dez’ s ad m i ssi on tha the w as dep ort ed on D ecem ber 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 ina p p ly in gU .S . S e n te n c in gG u i d e lin e s M a n u a l (U .S .S .G .) § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(a )(ii). S ot o- H erna n dez argu es t h at hi s s en t en ce of T exas defer red adj u di cat i on s h o u l dn o tb e t r e a t e da s af i n a lc o n v i c t i o n f

o rp u r p o s e s o f

U. S . S . G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) (A) . H e no t e s t hatt he i s s ue i s f o r e c l o s e d b y Fi f

t h Ci r c ui tpr e c e de nt a n dt h a th e i s r a i s i n gt h e i s s u e s o l e l yt o p r e s e rv e itf o r p o s s ib l e f

u r t h e rr e v i e w. Th i s i ss ue i s f

or ec l os ed by Un i t ed S t ate s v. V aldez- V aldez , 143 F. 3d 196, 200- 01 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). AF F I RMED.