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 CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 41394 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. AURELI O LARA Z APATA 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 S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 7 :06 -C R -4 8 -1 B ef ore SM ITH , D eM O S S , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * A u reli o L a raZ a p a ta a p p ea l s th e s e n te n ce im p ose df oll ow i n g h i s gu i l ty p l e ac o n v i c t i o n f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

c h i l dp o r n o g r a p h y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. §§ 225 2A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) , (b) ( 2) , a n d 225 6. Z ap ata w as sen t en ced w i t h i n hi s advis ory sen ten ci n g g u i d eli n es ra n ge to a 7 8 -m on thterm of i m p ri son m en t. Fo l l o wi ng Un ite dS t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , wer e v i e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i o ns f o rr e as o nab l e ne s s i n li ghto f t he s e nt e nc i ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D June 15, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 41394

2 fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 586, 5 9 6
- 97 ( 20 07 ) . Fi r s t , w e c o ns i de rw he t he rt he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d i s pr o c e dur ally s o und. Id . a t 5 9 7 . T h e r e a fte r , w e co n s id e rw h e th e rth e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n ti v e ly r e a s o n a b le , u s in ga n a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . I d. Asentence i m posed w ith in ap r o p e r lyca lc u la te dg u id e lin e ra n g e is e n tit le dto are b u tt a b le p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2462 (2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 4 3 5 F .3d5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Zap at a ar gue s that t hi s c o ur t s ho ul d s um m ar i ly va c at e hi s s e nt e nc e a nd r e ma n dt h e c a s e t o t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tfo rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h to f t h e S u p r e me Cour t ’ s de c i s i o ns i n G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 8 6 , Ki m bro ugh v . Uni t ed S t ate s , 128 S. Ct . 5 58( 20 07 ) , a nd R ita , 127 S. C t . at 245 6. Zap ata contends that th ose c ases, w h i ch w ere i ssu edafter h i s sen ten ci n g, ab rog a tedthe ration a l e of p rev i ou s F ifth Ci r c ui tde c i s i o ns b y br o ad e ni ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s d i scr e t i o n t o i m po s e ano ngui deli nes s ent enc e. H e a r gues , t her ef or e, t hatt he di st r i c tc our tbe l i eve d t hat i tcoul d n otsentence h i m bel ow t h e G u i del i n es i n t h e absen ce of “ extr aordi n ary circu m sta n ces”an d could not c on si der cer t ai n fact ors such as age, ri sk of r e c i divi s m , f

i nanc i als i t uat i o n, o rt he ne e d f o rps yc hi at r i ct r e at m e nti n i m po s i ng t h e s e n t e n c e . B e c a u s e t h i s t h e o r ywa s n o ta r g u e di n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , we r e v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3d3 3 7 , 3 3 9 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ). N othi ng i n t he rec or d sugges t s t hatt he di st r i c tc our tw as c ons t r ai ned by t h i s c o u r t ’ s p r e c e d e n t f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f Z a p a t a ’ s a r g u m e n t s f o ra no ngu i d e lin es se n ten ce ortha t th e d i stri ct cou rt beli ev edtha t it cou l dn ot d ev i a te f rom t h e adv i sory gui del i n es r an ge i n t h e absen ce of ext raordi n ary circum st an ces. To the contrary, t h e rec ord ref l ect s th at th e di st ri ctcourt c o ns i de r e d Za pa t a’ s a r gum e nt s, the p r e s e nt e nc e r e po r t(PSR ) , a nd the s e n t e n c in gfa c t o r s s e tfo r t h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ), in d e t e r m in in gZ a p a t a ’s sen ten ce. T h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s rea s o n s for im p osin g th e se n ten ce a re b oth a p p a r e n tfr o m t h e re c o r da n ds u ffic ie n t t o s u p p o r t Z a p a ta ’ s s e n te n c e . S eeN o. 06- 41394

3 Un itedS ta tes v. B o n illa , 5 24F. 3d6 47 , 6 57
- 59 ( 5th Ci r . 2 008) (no t i ng t hatt he di st ri ctcourt h ad consi dered t h e argu m en t s of t h e pa rt i es an d th e P S R , w h i ch c o nt ai ne d i nf

o r m at i o n per t ai ni ng t o t ho s ea r gum e nt s , a nd c o nc l udi ng t hatt he di st r i c tc our thad adequat ely expl ai ned it s c hoi c e o f s ent enc e) . Acc or di ngl y, th e r e w a s n o p la in e r r o r . S e eCa mp o s -Ma ld o n a d o , 531 F. 3d at339. In a d d iti o n , Z a p a tah a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e d istr ict co u rt’s im p o sition of a w i th i n -gu i d eli n es se n ten ce w a s i m p rop er u n d er eithe r the de fere n tia l G a ll s ta n d a r do f r e v ie w o ru n d e rp la in -e r r o rre v ie w . S ee G a ll , 1 2 8 S . C t . at597; Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 5 3 8 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 9 6 2 (20 0 9 ). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.