T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * 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 ar c h 19,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk 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. 05- 3482 v. D . K ans as J OS E ANT ONI O M ONT E S - CA NO,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 1 1 2 - 0 1 - W EB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. J os e A nt oni o M ont es - C ano pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryaft erdeport at i on s ubs equentt o an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on. H e appe al s fr om the s ent ence ,A ppel l antM ont es - C ano w as s ent ence d underthe 2005 edi t i on of the 1 U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l. A ll cita tio n s to th e g u id e lin e s in th is o p in io n re fe r t o th e 2 0 0 5 g u id e lin e s u n le s s o th e rw is e in d ic a te d . -2- c l a i mi n g i ti s u n r e a s o n a b l e . E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi rm. B ackgr ound O n J une 15, 2005, M ont es - C ano w as i ndi ct ed fori l l egal r e- entryaft er deport at i on s ubs equentt o an aggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), (b )(2 ). M o n tes -C a n o p led g u iltyto th e in d ictm e n t. T he pr e- s ent ence r eport( PSR ) appl i ed §2L1. 2 of the U ni t ed St at es S entenci ng G uidel i nes. U nd er §2 L 1. 2(a) , the base offense l evel w as 8. B ecause 1 M ont es - C ano w as pr evi ous l ydeport ed fol l ow i ng a fe l onydrug- tr aff i cki ng convi ct i on forw hi ch the s ent ence exce eded 13 months , the PSR i ncr eas ed the b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l b y1 6 le v e ls . See §2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) . A ppl y i ng a 2 l evel dow nw ar d adj us tm entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , s ee U SSG §3E 1. 1( a) , the PSR cal cul at ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 22. U s i ng the s ame fel onyconvi ct i on us ed to en h an ce the b ase o ffen se lev el by1 6 , the P S R ca lculated a c ri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ryo f III. B ase d o n a total offe n se lev el of 2 2 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ry o f

II I, t h e g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s 5 1 -6 3 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. See U SSG §5( A ) . A ts ent enci ng, the governm entm oved foran addi t i onal 1 poi ntr educt i on in th e b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. See U S S G § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the mot i on, r es ul t i ng i n a new gui del i ne r ange of 46- 57-3-

m o n th s. G iv e n th is a d v iso ryra n g e , the d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d M o n tes -C a n o to 5 1 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. D is cus s i on M o n tes-C an o ch all en g es h is sen tenc e u n d er United S tates v. B oo ker, ar gui ng i ti s unr eas onabl e bec aus e i ti s bas ed on “doubl e count i ng. ” See 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2 0 0 5 ). S p e c ifica lly , h e a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rlyu se d h is pr i orfel onydrug- tr aff i cki ng convi ct i on i n the ca l cul at i on of b o th his t otal offense l e v e l a n d c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry. Si nce M ont es - C ano conc edes he di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue befor e the di s tr i ct c o u rt , w e re v ie w fo r p la in e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. P urs l ey , 474 F. 3d 757, 769 ( 2007) . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaff ect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir .) ( e n b a n c ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 495 ( 2005) . “[T] he err orm us tbe part i cul ar l yegr egi ous , as w el l as obvi ous and s ubs t ant i al , ” and w e w i l l r ever s e “s ol el yi n thos e ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce w oul d otherw i s e r es ul t . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G i lkey , 118 F. 3d 7 0 2 , 7 0 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ).

“ [ A ] se n ten c e th a t is p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s is e n tit led to a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ). In th is c a se , the g u id e lin e s e x p licitly-4-

perm i t t ed the al l egedl yi m pr oper“doubl e count i ng. ” See U SSG §2L 1. 2, comm ent . n. 6 ( “A convi ct i on t aken i nt o acc ountunders ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) i s not ex clud ed fro m co n side rati o n o f w h ethe r th at co n v ict ion rec eive s crim inal h ist o ry p o ints pu rsua n t t o C h ap ter F o u r, P art A (C ri m inal H ist o ry ). ”). T hu s, M on t esC anos ’ s s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e. T o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of re a so n a b len e ss , a d e fe n d a n t m u st s h o w th e se n ten c e im p o se d is u n re a so n a b le u s in g th e fa c to rs s e t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id. at1055. M ont es - C ano has fai l ed t o do s o. M o n tes -C a n o c o n ten d s th e d istric t co u rt’s d o u b le c o u n tin g re n d e re d h is sent ence u nreasonab l e. B ut w e recent l yup held “do ub l e cou nti ng ” i n a case a d d re s s in g th e s a m e g u id e lin e p ro v is io n c h a lle n g e d h e re . Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , -- F . 3d -- , 20 07 W L 57 60 34 (10th C i r. 20 07 ). A s R uiz obs erved,

“ w e h a v e ro u tin e lyu p h e ld a s re a so n a b le th e u se o f p rio r c o n v ictio n s to c a lcu late both the cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryand a s ent ence enhanc ementw her e . . . the G ui del i nes author i ze i t . ” Id. a t * 6 . T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt w a s p e rm itt e d to “doubl e count , ” s i nce the gui del i nes expr es s l yperm i tt ed i tt o do s o. T he di s tr i ct courts t at ed i tcons i der ed the fa ct or s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) t o det erm i ne a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez -Juar ez , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 7 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . I tw as notunr eas onabl e forthe s ent enci ng j udge t o choos e the gui del i nes appr oach.-5-

T h e first p ro n g o f

th e p lain e rro r a n a ly sis re q u ire s u s to fin d a n e rro r; y e t, w e d is c e rn n o e rr o r a t a ll. T h e m a tte r i s c o n c lu d e d . AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge