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- 40788 Su m m ar y C 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. E N IL JO S U E C R U Z , al so kn ow n as Josue G al i n do-C ruz , 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 S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- C R
- 394- 1 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Eni lJ o s ue Cr uz pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o on e c o unto f il l e ga lr e e nt r y i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es aftera pr evi ous depo r t at i on and w as s ent enc ed t o s erve 46 m on t h s i n p ri son. C ruz ap pea l s h i s sen t en ce. C ruz argu es f i rsttha tt h e di st ri ct c o u r t r e v e r s ib lye r r e db ya p p ly in ga1 6 -le v e l cr im e o f v io le n c e a dju s tm e n t t o h is b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l p u r s u a n t t o U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(A)(ii) . H e c o n te n d s th a t h is T exas conv i ct i on f

or i n decen cy w i t h a ch i l d does n otqu al i f y as t h e enu m erat ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

11, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40788

2 cri m e of sexua labu se of

a m i n or u n der t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es be c ause T e xa s de f

i ne s t he a geo f

s e xua lc o ns e nta s 1 7 ye ar s o l d a nd the c o n te m p o r a r ya n dc o m m o n m e a n in go f th e w o r d“ m in o r” is 1 6 y e a r s o f a g e . S ee Tex. PenalC ode§ 21. 11. Thi s ar gum enti s, as he a ck n ow l edge s, f or ec l os ed by p r e c e d e n t. S eeUn it edS ta tes v. Ay a la , 5 4 2 F .3 d4 9 4 , 4 9 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 3 8 8 (20 0 9 ). C r uz al soar gues t hat t he di st r i c t c our tc om m i t t ed s i gni f i c antpr oc edur al e r r o rb y i m po s i ng a s e nt e nc e w i t hi n t he pe r t i ne ntg ui de l i ne s r ang e w i t ho ut g ivin gsp e cific re a so n s fo r r ejec tin gh is n o n friv o lou s a rg u m e n t s in fav o r o f a s e n te n c e b e lo w th is ra n g e . W e re v ie w th is is s u e fo rp la in e r r o r o n ly d u e to h is fa ilu r e to p r e s e n t itt o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndrago nSa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 3 -6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led(June 24, 2009) ( N o. 08- 11099) . T o s how pl ai n er r or , C r uz m usts how a f or feit ed e r r ort hat i s cl ea r or ob viou s an dtha t aff ects h i s su b stan ti a l r ig h ts . P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. C t . 1423, 1429 ( 2009) . If he m akes s uch a s how i ng, t hi s c our thas th e d i scre ti on to correc t th e erro r b u t w i l ld o so on l y if the erro r seriou sly affects t h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. I d. E ven if t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed bynot provi di n g ad e q u a te r e ason s f or rej ect i n g C ruz’ s argum en t s, C ruz st i l lha s not show n t h at he shoul d r e ceive reli ef o n th is cla im . C r u z h a s fa ile d to s h o w th a t a m o r e e x te n s iv e e x p la n a tio n fo rh is s e n te n c e w o u ldh a v e r e s u lte dinad iffe r e n t s e n te n c e . SeeMondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 da t 3 6 2 -6 4 . C r u z ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e r r o ra ffe c te dh is sub st an t i al ri gh t s becau se i t h am pers ou r abili t y t o revi ew t h e reasonab l en ess o f h is s e n te n c e is u n a v a ilin g . S ee i d. at365. 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.