T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 2173 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) F E L I P E T RE VI Z O- CE RA ,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o. C R -06-259 -W J)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , AN DE RS ON , and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

Fel i pe Tre vi zo- C er a, a ci t i zen of M exi co, pl ed gui l tyt o one countof i l l egal r eentrybyan al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) (1) , (a) (2) and (b) (2) . H e w as sent enced t o fo rty -one m on ths’ im p ri so n m en t, fo ll o w ed b ythree y ea rs of su p erv ised release . T rev izo-C era a p p e a l s th a ts e n t e n c e , wh i c h we a ffi r m.-2- BA CKGROUND O n J une 23, 1995, T r evi zo- C er a w as convi ct ed of a t t empt ed s econd de gr ee as s aul t . H e r ece i ved a tw o- y ears ent ence t hatr an conc ur r ent l yw i th a cr i m i nal m i s chi ef c onvi ct i on. A t t empt ed s econd de gr ee a s s aul ti s an aggr avat ed fe l onyfor fede r al i m m i gr at i on purpos es . 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) . T r evi zo- C er a w as deport ed t o M exi co i n A pr i l 1996. O n N ovember14, 2005, T r evi zo- C er a i l l egal l yr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es and w as arr es t ed byagent s atthe bor der . A s i ndi cat ed, he pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal r e e n try b y a n a l i e n w i th a p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n fo ra n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y. I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch ca l cul at ed an a dvi s or ys ent enci ng r ange unde r th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n G u id e lin e s M a n u a l ( “ U S S G ” ) ( 2 0 0 5 ). T h e P S R d eterm ined that T rev izo-C era ’s ba se o ffen se lev el w as e igh t. It r ecomm ended a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ementbeca us e Tre vi zo- C er a had be en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , s ee U SSG §2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and a th re e -l e v e l r e d u c tio n fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. S e e U S S G § 3 E 1 .1 . T rev izo-C era h ad six c ri m inal h ist o ryp o ints, w h ich e q u ated to a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof I I I . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce r ecomm ended, and the part i es agr eed, t hat T re v iz o -C e ra ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o v e rr e p re s e n te d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. T h e d istric t co u rt a g re e d th a t a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f II m o re a c c u ra tely r epr es ent ed Tre vi zo- C er a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . A t ot al adj us t ed offens e l evel of-3-

tw enty - one and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I y i el ded an a dvi s orys ent enci ng range o f fo rty -one t o fifty -one m on ths. Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, T r evi zo- C er a fi l ed a Sent enci ng M emora ndum and R equ estfor V ari ance a ski ng for a t otal adjust ed o ffen se l evel of si xteen as a r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e u n d e rt h e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s c o n t a i n e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T re v izo -C e ra c o n c e d e d “ th e fa c t th a t th e p rio r a ttem p ted a ss a u lt convi ct i on m ayt echni cal l yqual i fyas a ‘ cr i m e of vi ol ence ’ unders ect i on 2L 1. 2 of the G ui del i nes . ” Sent enci ng M em. at11, R . V ol . I , doc. 18. H ow ever , he ar gued that“the cha ot i c des cr i pt i on [i n the pol i ce r eport s ] of a l ar ge- s cal e barfi ght i nvol vi ng appr oxi m at el ytw entyi nt oxi cat ed i ndi vi dual s , demonstr at es thatthe 16- l evel enhanc ementi s notj us t i fi ed. ” I d. T r evi zo- C er a as s er t ed thatthe s er i ous nes s of thatoffe ns e, hi s pot ent i al danger ous nes s , and the nee d t o pr ot ect the comm uni tyfur therdemonstr at ed thata s i xt een- l evel upw ar d adj us t m entbas ed o n th e a tte m p te d s e c o n d d e g re e a s s a u lt c o n v ic tio n w a s u n w a rr a n te d in h is c a s e . T he governm entoppos ed Tre vi zo- C er a’ s r eques tfora var i ance , ar gui ng thatthe a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e w a s c o rre c tlyc a lcu late d a n d T re v izo -C e ra fa iled to s how thata forty - one- m onth s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) sent encing factors . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, T r evi zo- C er a di d notobj ectt o the fa ctual fi ndi ngs i n the PSR , exce ptforan obj ect i on t o an al i as l i s t ed i n the PSR . H e once a g a in a g re e d th a t “[ t]e c h n ica lly , p e rh a p s, th is a ss a u lt co n v ictio n f ro m C o lo ra d o in-4-

1 9 9 5 w o u ld q u a lifya s a c rim e o f v io len c e .” T r. o f

S e n ten c in g H r’g a t 6 , R . V o l. I I I . H e cont i nued t o ar gue, how ever , thatthe fa ct s of the cr i m e di d notw arr ant th e six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t, an d h e a ttac h e d p o lice re p o rts in su p p o rt o f h is cl ai m thatt he s i tuat i on w as chaot i c and s ugges t ed thathe w as a vi ct i m w ho had b ee n att ac k ed b yp o li ce o fficers. T rev izo-C era arg u ed that the p o li ce rep o rt s w ere r el evantand pr oper l ycons ul t ed bec aus e ther e w as “s om e unce r t ai ntyas t o the under l y i ng fac t s . ” I d. at12. T he di s tr i ctcour tacknow l edged that , forpurpos es o f c a lcu latin g th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e se n ten c e , the p o lice re p o rts w e re irre lev a n t, as i tw as cl ear , as T r evi zo- C er a conc eded, thats econd- degr ee a s s aul tqual i fi ed c a teg o ric a llya s a c rim e o f v io len c e . It ac c o rd in g lyse n ten c e d T re v izo -C e ra to for ty - one mont hs , atthe bott om of the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange. T r evi zo- C er a appe al s , ar gui ng: ( 1) Shepar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U . S. 13 (2 0 0 5 ), an d T a y lo r v . U n ited S tate s, 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ), w h ich h e ld th a t, i n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a p rio r c o n v ictio n is a c rim e o f v io len c e , se n ten c in g c o u rts m us tt ake “ a form al cat egor i cal appr oach, l ooki ng onl yt o the s t atut orydefi ni t i ons of the pr i oroffe ns es , and nott o the part i cul arfac t s under l y i ng thos e convi ct i ons , ” T a yl o r , 4 9 5 U . S . a t6 0 0 , a n d th a tp o l i c e r e p o r t s m a y notbe cons i der ed, Shepar d, 5 4 4 U .S . at 1 6 , h a v e n o a p p lica tio n to th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s; a n d (2 ) “ [ i]t is unr eas onabl e t o i m pos e a 16- l evel i ncr eas e fora 1995 convi ct i on foratt empt ed as s aul t , bas ed on a ba rfi ght . ” A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at13.-5- DI S CU S S I ON I . A ppl i cabi l i t y of

Shepard/ T ay l or: A s i ndi cat ed, T ay l orhel d thatcourt s m us tappl ya form al cat egor i cal appr oach t o det erm i ni ng w hethera pr i orconvi ct i on w as fora cr i m e of vi ol ence fo r se n ten c in g p u rp o se s. “ In a p p ly in g T a y lo r, w e h a v e h e ld th a t if ‘th e sta tu te is a m b ig u o u s , o r b ro a d e n o u g h to e n c o m p a s s b o th v io le n t a n d n o n v io le n t c ri m e s , a courtcan l ook bey ond t he s t atut e t o cert ai n r ecor ds of the pr i orpr ocee di ng, s uch as the cha r gi ng document s , the j udgm ent , anypl ea ther et o, and fi ndi ngs byt he [ se n ten c in g ] c o u rt.’” U n ited S tate s v . P e re z -V a rg a s, 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. D w y er , 245 F. 3d 1168, 1171 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( fur therquot at i on om i t t ed) ) . Shepar d found that“Tay l or ’ s r eas oni ng contr ol s t he i dent i fi cat i on of . . . convi ct i ons fol l ow i ng pl eas , as w el l as convi ct i ons on v e rd icts ,” a n d f

u rth e r h e ld th a t a s e n ten c in g c o u rt m a yn o t lo o k a t p o lice re p o rts o r c o m p la in t a p p lic a tio n s in d e te rm in in g th e n a tu re o f a p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . Shepar d, 544 U . S. at16. W hi l e Shepar d, byi t s t erm s , i nvol ved appl i cat i on of the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) , w e have hel d thati t s r eas oni ng i s e q u a l l ya p p l i c a b l e t o th e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f wh e th e ra p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n i s a c r i me of vi ol ence underthe G ui del i nes , § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) . Per ez- V ar gas , 424 F. 3d 1282. T r evi zo- C er a conc edes thatt hi s i s s ue has al r eadybeen r es ol ved byour circu itad v erse lyto h im , b u t prese rve s the issue fo r po ssible S u p rem e C o u rt-6-

re v ie w o r r e v ie w b yo u r c o u rt e n b a n c . W e a re b o u n d b yo u r c ir c u it p re c e d e n t. See U ni t ed St at es v. M ey er s , 200 F. 3d 715, 720 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( not i ng thatone p an el m ayn o t ov erru le an o ther p an el). T re v izo -C e ra m a k e s a n a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n t ab o u t S h e p a rd . H e a ss e rts th a t, w h il e the d istri ct co u rtfo ll o w ed circu itp rec ed en t i n h o lding that S h ep ard p ro h ib ited it fro m e x a m in in g th e p o lice re p o rts re g a rd in g h is p rio r a ss a u lt convi ct i on i n the pr oces s of ca l cul at i ng hi s advi s or yG ui del i ne s ent ence , nothi ng pr ohi bi t ed the courtfr om cons i der i ng thos e r eport s i n as s es s i ng w hetherthe ad v isoryG u ideline s en tenc e w as re aso n ab le i n li g h t of the s en tenc ing fa ctors cont ai ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e ar gues thatthe court ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i der thos e r eport s w as a l egal err orr equi r i ng r es ent enci ng. W h il e w e d iscu ss m o re f u ll y , inf ra, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s expl anat i on for i m pos i ng t he forty - one- m onth s ent ence i n thi s cas e, w e mayr es ol ve thi s one ar gum entbypoi nt i ng outcert ai n comm ent s m ade bythe courtdur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. W hen the t opi c of the pol i ce r eport s came up, the di s tr i ct courti ndi cat ed thatShepar d pr ohi bi t ed the courtfr om “cons i der [i ng] the under l y i ng – t he fa ct s under l y i ng the convi ct i on. ” Tr. of Sent enci ng H r ’ g at13, R . V ol . I I I . T he courtnot ed thati tw as l i m i t ed t o the ca t egor i cal appr oach: “I don’ ts ee w her e y ou getar ound the cr i m e of – y ou know , i n otherw or ds , the s peci fi c def

i ni t i ons undert he gui del i nes forthe offens e thathe’ s been c onvi ct ed-7-

o n . ” I d . ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . De fe n s e c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d b yc i t i n g 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553, t o w hi ch the courtr epl i ed, “W el l , I agr ee y ou can c ons i derthat . ” I d. Fur ther , aft ernot i ng t hathe w as “ce r t ai nl ynotthe fi r s tj udge t o get r ever s ed byt he ci r cui tforr educi ng a s ent ence underthe gui del i nes bas ed on the h a r s h n e s s o f

th e g u i d e l i n e s , ” th e c o u r ta c k n o wl e d g e d , “ n o w, a g a i n , i tma yc o me in u n d er 3 5 5 3 (a) . . . . ” Id . at 16 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e in terp re t th o se c o m m e n ts a s a n a c k n o w led g m e n t th a t S h e p a rd p ro h ib its the us e of pol i ce r eport s abouta pr i orconvi ct i on w hen ca l cul at i ng a G ui del i ne s ent ence . H ow ever , once thatG ui del i ne s ent ence has been c al cul at ed, the part i cul arfac t s s urr oundi ng t he pr i orconvi ct i on c o u ldbe cons i der ed w hen the c o u rt is d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e se n ten c e is th e a p p ro p ria te sent ence in l i gh tof § 35 53 (a) ’s fact ors. S ee U nit ed S t at es v. T ruj i l l o-T err azas, 405 F. 3d 814 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . N o pr eci s e l anguage w as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h t he court ’ s r eas oni ng. “I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thatw e do not‘ demand t hatthe di s tr i ct courtr eci t e anym agi c w or ds t o s how us thati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be m i ndful of the fa ct or s thatC ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i der . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. J arr i l l o- L una, 478 F. 3d 1226, 1229 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C o n tre ra s-M a rtin e z , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). W e a c c o rd in g lyW h ile T re v izo -C e ra a rg u e s th e p o lice re p o rts p lac e h im in a sy m p a th e tic 1 li g h t, theyare n o t, in fac t, n ec essa ri lyh elpf u l t o h is cau se. O n e o f th e o fficers arr i ving atthe scen e of the bar fi gh tdescri bed T revi zo-C era as foll ow s: H o w e v e r, I n o tice d [ T re v izo -]C e ra , as I w a s w a lk in g u p , en g a g in g in a fi ghtw i th num er ous peopl e. H e w as both ki cki ng and punchi ng at them. . . . [Tre vi zo- ] C er a s eemed t o be one of t he mostvi ol ent combat ant s , [s o] I deci ded t o tryand r emove hi m fr om t he s cene as otherpeopl e w er e vol unt ar i l ydi s engagi ng fr om t he di s turbance upon the P o li ce arriving an d the P o li ce y ell ing , [“ ]P o li ce , b rea k itu p . [” ] T hes e pl eas , bym y s el f and otheroffi cer s w er e i gnor ed by [Tre vi zo- ] C er a and he cont i nued thr ow i ng punches w i th atl eas tt hr ee o ther p eo p le. I gra b b ed h is r igh t han d an d p u ll ed h im b ac k tow ard Pi ne Str eett o keep hi m fr om i nfl i ct i ng anym or e damage. [Tre vi zo- ] C er a atthatpoi nt , s w ung ar ound and thr ew a w i l d punch, wh i c h I d u c k e d , b u t[ i t ] h i tme t o wa r d t h e b a c k s i d e o f t h e h e a d . At thatt i m e I s truck hi m w i th a bat on i n the l ow erl egs . H e then moved back a nd w as s quar ed off s tr ai ghtatm e, and att hatt i m e O ffi cer R eed w as al s o i n t he ar ea t oo, and w e w er e y el l i ng, “G etdow n, Pol i ce. ” N um er ous t i m es [Tre vi zo- ] C er a puthi s hands up i n a fi ght i ng s t ance , and he w as s truck aga i n i n the s hi ns . . . ataboutt he s ame t i m e I w as aboutt o s tr i ke hi m i n the s hi n, he thr ew another punch atm e w hi ch hi tm e i n the l i p and for ehea d ar ea. Pol i ce Repor tbySer geantB r oder i ck, R . V ol . I , doc. 18, E x. A at3. -8- c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d n o e rro r in c o n n e c tio n w ith its treatm ent of t he p oli ce report s. 1

I I . R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence : Si nc e the Sup r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Uni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , the form er l ym andat oryfede r al s ent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e now adv i sory . “P ost -B oo ker, w e revi ew sent encing d eci si on s for r easona bleness , w hi ch has both pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s . ” U ni t ed St at es v.W e not e thatthe Supr eme C our thas hear d or al ar gum enti n tw o cas es 2 w hi ch mayi m pactthe w ayw e r evi ew s ent ence s aft erB ooker , i n part i cul ar , t he val i di tyornotof the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s w e have acc or ded t o w i thi nG u idelines sen tenc es. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . R it a, 17 7 F ed . A p p x . 3 5 7 (4th C ir . ), cert . gr ant ed, 127 S. C t . 551 ( 2006) ( N o. 06- 5754) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C l ai borne, 4 3 9 F .3 d 4 7 9 (8 th C ir .), c e rt . g ra n te d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 5 5 1 (2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 6 -5 6 1 8 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n sid e r th e re a so n a b len e ss o f T re v izo -C e ra ’s s e n ten c e b o th w i th an d w i tho ut a pr esum pti on of reasonab l eness. -9- A ten c io , 4 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). “I n se tti n g a p ro c e d u ra lly r eas onabl e s ent ence , a di s tr i ctcourtm us tcal cul at e the pr operadvi s or yG ui del i nes ra n g e a n d a p p lyth e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” I d . “A su b sta n tiv e ly r eas onabl e s ent ence ul t i m at el yr efl ect s the gr avi tyof the cr i m e and the § 3553( a) fac t or s as appl i ed t o the ca s e. ” I d. B ec au se d istri ct co u rt s co n ti n u e to c alcu lat e a G u idelines sen tenc e a s p art of thei rdet erm i nat i on of a r eas onabl e s ent ence , “w e cont i nue t o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes de novo, and w e r evi ew anyfac tual fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r.” U n ited S tate s v . T o w n ley, 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 5 -7 6 (1 0 th C i r . 2007) , pet i t i on forcert . fi l ed ( M ar ch 12, 2007) ( N o. 06- 10032) . W her e a di s tr i ctcourt“corr ect l yappl i es t he G ui del i nes and i m pos es a s ent ence w i thi n t he appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, thats ent ence ‘ i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ’ ” I d. at1276 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am ). 2 T re v izo -C e ra a rg u e s th e six tee n -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t w a s u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it ca u se d h is s e n ten c in g ra n g e to in c re a se f ro m “ z e ro to six m o n th s” to-10-

“forty - one t o fi fty - one mont hs . ” H e as s er t s thats uch an i ncr eas e “fora dec adeo ld a ttem p ted a ss a u lt v io late s th e sta tu to rym a n d a te th a t a s e n ten c e b e ‘su fficie n t, butnotgr eat ert han nec es s ary , t o compl yw i th the purpos es ’ art i cul at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) . ” A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at15. W e di s agr ee. Sect i on 3553( a) ( 2) s t at es thata courts hal l cons i derthe fol l ow i ng w hen se n ten c in g a d e fe n d a n t: ( 2) the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed– (A ) to re flec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se , to p ro m o te r es pectforthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfor the offens e; (B ) to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defe ndant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tr ea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti v e m an n er; 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) . T r evi zo- C er a ar gues thatthes e s t atut or yel ement s s erve th e s e n te n c in g g o a ls o f re tr ib u tio n , d e te rr e n c e , in c a p a c ita tio n , a n d re h a b ilita tio n . H e as s ert s t hatt he forty - one mont h s ent ence i m pos ed forhi s i l l egal r eentryaft er being previousl ycon vict ed o f an a gg ravat ed fe l on yserves no ne o f t hese pu rposes. W i th r es pectt o r etr i but i on, T r evi zo- C er a ar gues thathi s offe ns e w as vi ct i m l es s and mer el yr egul at ory , s uch thata forty - one mont h s ent ence i s t oo l ong t o gener at e appr opr i at e r etr i but i on. T hi s i s s i m pl ya gene r i c att ack on a s ent ence o f a n ylen g th fo r illeg a l alie n s w h o re e n ter th e c o u n trya n d , as su c h , inv ites u s to-11-

r ew r i t e w hol es al e the l egi s l at i ve pr onouncement s on i m m i gr at i on offe ns es . T hat w e dec l i ne t o do. W i th r es pectt o det err ence and i ncapa ci t at i on, T r evi zo- C er a makes sim il arlyg en eric an d v ag u e a ll eg ati o n s tha t his fo rty -on e m o n th se n tenc e is m o re th a n n e c e ss a ryto se rv e th o se se n ten c in g g o a ls. T h e se c o n c lu so rya ss e rtio n s fa il to c o n v in c e u s o f

th e u n re a so n a b len e ss o f th e se n ten c e . F in a lly , w ith re sp e c t to r ehabi l i t at i on, T r evi zo- C er a poi nt s outthat , as an i l l egal al i en, he i s notperm i t t ed t o t ake a dvant age of

m anyof the r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr ams i n the fe der al pr i s on sy ste m , an d th u s h is s e n ten c e w ill fa il t o se rv e th e g o a l o f re h a b ili tatio n . T h is a g a in a m o u n ts to a g e n e ri c a tta c k o n a n ys e n te n c e m e te d o u t to a n yille g a l a lie n . I tfai l s t o convi nce us thatT r evi zo- C er a’ s i ndi vi dual s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. I n s um , i n thi s cas e, t he di s tr i ctcourti ndi cat ed thati thad cons i der ed the P S R , th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s , a n d th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs c o n ta in e d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A fter ex p lai n ing at so m e len g th w h ythe c o u rtd eterm ined that the a d v isory gui del i ne s ent ence , w i th i t s s i xt een- l evel enhanc ement , w as corr ect l ycomput ed, th e c o u r tth e n c o n s i d e r e d wh e th e rth e s e n t e n c e wa s “ r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a )? ” T r. o f

S e n ten c in g H r’g a t 2 0 , R . V o l. III. A f ter e x a m in in g in part i cul arthe hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of Tre vi zo- C er a, the courtconcl uded that a s ent ence atthe bott om of the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange w as r eas onabl e. U pon r evi ew , w e al s o fi nd t he s ent ence i m pos ed w as both r eas oned and r eas onabl e, w ith o r w ith o u t a p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s fo r a w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e .-12- CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he s ent ence i n thi s cas e. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge