Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51208 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. L U IS F E R N A N D O O R T IZ- R U IZ , al so kn ow n as R am i ro G arci a- S al gad 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 t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 2 0 5 7 - ALL B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Lui s Fe r nand o O r t i z - Rui z ( O r t i z ) appe al s t he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d f o l l o w i ng h i s g u i l t yp l e a c o n v i c t i o n t o i l l e g a lr e e n t r yo f a p r e v i o u s l yd e p o r t e da l i e n . H e argu es t h at t h e sentence i m posed by t he di s t ri ctcourtw as un reasona bl e becau se i tw a s g r e a t e rt h a n n e c e s s a r yt o me e tt h e g o a l s o f 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . H e c o nt e nds t hatt he a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s r ang e o f 4 6– 57 m o nt hs w as t o o s e ve r e , t he i l l egalr e e ntr yg ui d el i ne i s notem pi r i c al l y bas ed and do ubl e c ount ed hi s c r i m i nal recor d, an d the presum pti on of reasonab l en ess shou l d not ap pl y. O rt i z argues United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51208

2 th a t t h e G u id e lin e s o v e r s ta te dth e s e n te n c e n e c e s s a r yg iv e n (1 ) th a t h is c onvi c t i on w as s eve r alye ar s ol d and ( 2) t hatt he c onvi c t i on’ s se r i ous nes s w as e xa gg e r at e d. Fi nal l y, he c o nt e nds t hatt he g ui de l i ne s r ang e a l s o di d no ta c c o unt fo rh is m o tiv e fo rre e n te r in g , w h ic h w a s to s u p p o r t h is fa m ily . W e revi ew ed the sentence i m posed by t h e di st ri ctcourtf or r eason ableness i n l i gh t of th e sen ten ci n g fa ctors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3 d5 1 1 , 5 1 9

– 2 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O r tiz ’ s co n te n tio n th a t h is w ith in gu i del i n es s en t en ce i s not en t i t l ed to a presu m pti on of reasona bl en ess becau se th e relev a n t gu i d eli n e is n ot s u p p orted byem p i ri ca lev i d en ce is w i th ou t m erit. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. D u a rte , 5 6 9 F .3 d5 2 8 , 5 2 9

– 3 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 6

– 6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), p etition force rt. f i le d (June 24, 2009) ( N o. 08- 11099) . H i s as se r t i ons , t hathe s houl d have received a l ow er s en t en ce based on hi s m ot ive f or r et u rni n g t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates an d that hi s pri or c on vi ct i on overstat e d t h e ser i ou sness of hi s c on du ct , are in s u ffic ie n t to o v e r c o m e th is p r e s u m p tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herr era , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 5

– 6 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 624 ( 200 8) . B ecau se O rt i z h as n otsh ow n tha tthe sentence i m posed w as u n reasona bl e, hi s s en t en ce i s A F F I RMED.