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 precedent 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. 09- 10629 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,

ve r s us IVA N M U N O Z -F AV E L A , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

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 N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C R

- 5- 1

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: *

Iv a n M u n o z -F a v e la w a s co n v ic te do f ille g a l re e n tr y . S ee8 U
. S. C
. § 1326. H e a p p ea l s th e se n ten ce re su l ti n g from an u p w a rdde p a rtu re p u rsu a n t t o United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10629 Document: 00511064180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 10629

2 U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 3. H e a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d p r o c e dur al l y i n fail i ng t o c o ns i de r e ac h i nt e r m e di at e s t e p as i t m o ve d up t he v ar i o us o f fe ns e l e ve l s w i t hi n cat egory V I. O u r r evi ew of M u n oz’ s procedura l ch a ll en ge i s f or pl ai n err or. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Ne al , 5 7 8 F .3 d2 7 0 , 2 7 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); F ED . R. C RIM . P. 5 1 (b ). I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. L am bert , 9 8 4 F .2d 6 5 8 , 6 6 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) ( e n b a n c), th is co u r t s ta te d , “ O r d in a r ilyt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e a s o n s fo rreje c tin gin te r m e d ia te c a te g o ri es w i l lcl earl y be i m pl i ci t , i f not expl i ci t , i n t h e court ’ s expl an ati on f ori t s depar t ure f

r om t he c a teg ory ca l c ul at ed undert he gui del i nes and i t s expl an ati on f

or t h e cat egory i tha s c h osen as ap propri ate. ” Th at i s t h e case h ere: T h e co u r t p la in lys e t fo r th t h e re a s o n s fo rits u p w a r dd e p a r tu r e , th e r e b yim p lic itlyreje c tin gin te r m e d ia te o ffe n s e le v e ls
. S ee, e. g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Z u n iga - Pera lta , 442 F
. 3d 345 , 348 n . 2 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. T h u s, M u n oz ha s not show n err or, p la in o ro th e r w is e , a s to th e p r o c e d u r a l s o u n d n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e . S ee A lf ord , 142 F. 3d at830- 31. M u n oz contends f

u rt h er t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtj u st i f i ed i t s up w ard d epa rt ur e o n a n i m pe r m i s s ibl e b as i s i n t hat , a l t ho ughno ne of h i s p ri o rc o nvi c t i o ns qua l i f i e d a s a gg r av at e d f

e l o ni e s , t he c o ur t c o ns i de r e d t he m a s s uc h b e c aus e t he
v io le n t c o n d u c t u n d e r ly in gth o s e co n v ic tio n s re s e m b le dfe lo n ie s . T h is cla im
am ou n t s t o specul ati on as t o t h e m ot ives f or i m posi n g an up w ard d epa rt u re. M oreover, t h e argu m en ti s c on t radi ct ed byt h e rec ord. Th e courtpl ai n l y st ated t h at t h e pri or of

fen ses “ di d n otri se to the l evelof agg ravated fel on i es. ” B ecau se t h e courtdi d n otcl assi f y M u n oz’ s pri or vi ol en tof fen ses as “ agg ravated fel on i es”
o r“ c r i m e s o f vi o l e nc e , ” t he c at e go r i c ala ppr o ac h ha d no a ppli c at i o n i n t he s e nte n c in gp r o c e e d in g s . S ee , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v. E lli s , 56 4 F
. 3 d37 0 , 37 1 -72 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 7 1 (2 0 0 9 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10629 Document: 00511064180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010