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. 08- 10816 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. TO M AS B AL LE ZA- CO RT EZ 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 N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 8 - CR- 4 0 - ALL B ef oreSM ITH , ST E W A R T an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * M ex i ca nn a ti on a lT om a s B a l l ez a -C or te z (B a l l ez a ) a p p ea l s th e 7 1 -m on th s e n te n c e h e re c e iv e dfo llo w in gh i s g u ilty -p le aco n v ic tio n fo rille g a l re e n tr y , in vi o l at i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 32 6. Fo rthe f i rs tt i m e o n a ppe al , hea r gue s t hatt he s e n te n c e im p o s e dis u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic tco u r t fa ile dto e x p la in ad equ ately i t s r eason s f or i m posi n g sentence or f or r ej ect i n g h i s m i t i gati on a r g u m e n ts . W e re v ie w th e n e w lyra is e da r g u m e n t fo rp la ine r r o ro n ly . Un i t ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D June 2, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10816

2 S t ate s v. Casper , 5 3 6 F .3 d4 0 9 , 4 1 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), vaca t ed on ot h er g ro u n d s, 2 0 0 9 U .S . L E X IS 3 3 1 6 (U .S . M a y4 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 8 -7 2 2 8 ); se e also Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez- V

elasqu ez , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 0 4 , 8 0 6 -0 7 (5 th C ir .), c e r t. d e n ie d, 129 S. C t . 625 ( 200 8) . To d em on st ra te p la in e rror , B al l eza show an err or th at i s c l ear or o b v io u s a n dt h a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 538 F. 3d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 29 S. Ct . 96 2 ( 20 09 ) . I f hem ak e s s uc h a s h o w in g , th is co u r t h a s t h e d is c r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n lyif it s e r io u s ly a ffe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I d. B al l eza h as fai l ed to m ak e t h e requi redshow i n g. H i s argum en t s are prem i sed u pon asser t i ont h at th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otexpl ai n t h e reason s f or i m posi n g sentence, w h i ch assert i oni s fact u al ly i n corr ect . Th e re cord m ak es p l a i nth a t th e d i stri ct co u rt d ecli n edto d ep a rt u p w a rd ly b u t rel i edu p on the fa cts i n t he pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r tt hatw o ul d j u st i f y s uc h de pa r t ur e , t o w i t : t he e xt e ns ive n es s o f

Bal l e z a’ s c r i m i nalpa s t , hi s s us pe c t e d i nvo lve m e nti n g ang ac t ivit i es , hi s t w o a dul tfel ony c onvi cti on s, an d hi s m ul t i pl e unc harge d il l egal r e e n tr ie s , a s th e r e a s o n fo r im p o s in g s e n te n c e a t t h e h ig he n do f th e a p p lic a b le gui de l i ne s r ang e ; itf ur t he rs pe c if

i c ally s t at e d thatitha d c o ns i dered t he § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac to rs i nm a k i n g it s d eterm i n a ti on . T h ese rea son s w ere su ff i ci en t. S ee R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 9 (20 0 7 ). T h e w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e B a lle z a r e c e iv e dis p r e s u m p tiv e ly s u b s ta n tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . S ee Un i t edS ta tes v . Mares , 40 2 F . 3 d51 1 , 51 9 ( 5 th Ci r . 20 05 ) . Bal l e z a has no t de m o ns t r at e d any c l e ar o r o bv i o u s er ror i n t he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t , a n dt h e j u d g me n ti s t h e r e f o r e A F F I RMED.