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 th 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 li 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 CIRCUIT

N o. 09- 10449 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. S ERAF I N LOP EZ - TOVA R, 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 ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R - 77- 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 IAM: * S e r a fin L o p e z -T o v a ra p p e a ls th e 2 4 -m on ths e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is g u i l t y - p l e ac o n v i c t i o n fo ri l l e g a lr e e n t r ya f t e rd e p o r t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 1 32 6. H e c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y s e nt e nc i ng hi m a bo vet he ap pl i cabl e 2- 8 m on t h gu i del i n es r an ge beca u se th e courtbased the u pw ard vari an ce on it s di sagreem en tw i t h t h e excl u si on by the Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es of hi s aged con vi ct i on s f rom hi s c ri m i n alhi st ory sc ore. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D November

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 10449

2 A l th ou gh po st- B ooker , t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a r e a dv i s o r y o nly, a nd a n u lti m a te se n te n ce is re v ie w e dforre a so n a b len e ss u n d e r a n a b u se -ofdi scr et i on st an da rd, t h e di st ri ctcourtm us tst i l lproperl y cal cul ate th e gu i del i n esentenci n g ran ge f

or u se i n d eci di n g onthe sen t en ce t o i m pose. G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 38, 128 S. C t . 586 , 596 ( 200 7) . W e condu ctt h e reasonab l en ess r e v ie w inth e ligh t o f th e s e n te n c in gfa c to r s in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3 d5 1 1 , 5 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). If, a s inth is in s ta n c e , a def endantdoe s notc hal l enge t he pro c edur al c or r ec t nes s of t he se nt enc e, w e m ay p r o c e e d to a n e x a m in a tio n o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e , see Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ran t ley , 5 37 F . 3d347 , 349 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) , un der t h e abovem e n tio n e da b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . S ee G a ll , 128 S. C t . at597. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e da n o n -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e a b o v e th e a p p lic a b le gui de l i ne s r ang e . The s e l e c t i o n o f ano n- gui del i ne s s e nt e nc e i s w i t hi n t he d i s c r e tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Id . T h i s c o u r t“ m u s tg iv e d u e d e fe r e n c e t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t hatt he § 355 3( a) fac t o r s , on aw ho l e , j us t if y t he e xt e nt of th e v a ri a n ce.” I

d. “A no n- G ui de l i ne se nt e nc e unr e as o nab ly fail s t o r e f l e c tt he s ta tu to r ys e n te n c in gfa c to r s w h e r e it( 1 ) d o e s n o t a c c o u n t fo rafa c to rth a t s h o u ld h ave receivedsi gn if

i can tw ei gh t , ( 2) g ives si gn if i can tw ei gh tto a n irrel evan tor i m pr o pe rfac t o r , o r( 3) r e pr e s e nt s ac l e are r r o ro f j udg m e nti n b al anc i ng t he sen ten ci n g factor s. ” Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 4 4 0 F .3d7 0 4 , 7 0 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). The di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l ai ne d thatiti m po s e d a n upw ar d v ar i anc e f r o m t he r ec om m ended g ui deli nes r ange be c auseLopez - Tovarhad a “ se r i ous c r i m i nal h i story , ” i n cl u d i n g six con victi on s th a t d i d n ot rece ive crim i n a l h i storyp oin ts u n der t h e G u i del i n es. Th e di st ri ctcourtn ot ed t h at three of his convi ct i on s w ere f or drivi n g w h i l e i n t oxi c at ed an d that, al lt ogether, he h adni n e pri or c on vi ct i on s. T h e di st ri ctcourt f

u rt h er exp l ai n ed th at i tha d consi dered the § 355 3( a) fact ors, i nc l udi ng t he na t ur e a nd c i r c um s t anc e s o f t he o f fe ns e , t he hi s t o r y and c har ac t eri st i c s o f

t he de fe nda nt , t he ne e d t o pr o m o t e r e s pe c tf o rt he l aw, t heN o. 09- 10449

3 n ee dto aff

ordad eq u a te d eterre n ce to furth er crim i n a lcon d u ct, a n d th e n ee dto p rotect th e p u b l i c f

rom f u rth er crim es b y th e d efen d a n t. T h e di str ict cou rt ’ s up w ard va ri an ce f rom t h e gu i del i n es m axim u m of 8 m o n th s to a s e n te n c e o f 2 4 m o n th s w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le . S ee B ran t ley , 537 F . 3dat 348 - 50 (vari an ce f rom t h e gu i del i n es m a x im u m of 51 m on t h s t o a s e n te n c e o f 1 8 0 m o n th s d e e m e dre a s o n a b le ); Uni t e d S t at e sv . Saldana , 427 F. 3d 29 8, 3 12 ( 5th C i r . 200 5) ( no t i ng t hatal t ho ught he “ di s t r i c tc o ur tq uad r upl e d the m ax i m um s e nt e nc e a l l o w ab l e f o r[t he d efe nda nt] und e rt he G ui de l i ne s , ” t he s e n te n c e w a s re a s o n a b le ); Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 417 F . 3d483 , 492 - 93 (5t h C i r. 200 5) (up h ol di n g dep art u re of a l m ost3 00% fr om gu i del i n es r an ge m axim u m of 4 1 mo n t h s t o 1 2 0 mo n t h s ) . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.