Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50841 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. RE N E LE M U S- VA SQ U 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 t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 2 : 0 8
- CR- 9 3
- ALL
B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R e n e L e m u s -V a s q u e z a p p e a ls h is 2 7 -m o n th s e n te n c e fo llo w in gh is convic t i on , up on a pl ea of g u i l t y, forill egal reentr y af t er d eportat i on . H e argu es t hathi s non- G ui del i nes s ent enc e i s unreas onabl e b ec ause i ti s gr eat ert han n ecess ary t o sat i sf

y t h e sentenci n g goals of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3553 ( a)
. V asqu ez avers t h at t h e d i st ri ctcou rterred i n j u st i f yi n g t h e up w ard va ri an ce on i t s c on cl u si on t h a tt h e e i g h t
- l e v e la g g r a v a t e d

- fe l o n yi n c r e a s e u n d e rU. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1
. 2 (b ) ( 1 ) ( C) w a s n o t s u ffic ie n t t o c a p tu r e th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e p r io ro ffe n s e . H e e s s e n tia lly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50841

S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). 1 S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ran t ley , 5 3 7 F . 3 d3 4 7 , 3 5 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed 2 S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 1 7 F .3 d8 0 1 , 8 1 0 -1 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). S ee , e. g. , B ran t ley, 537 F. 3d at348- 50; 3 Uni t e d St at e s v . Sal dana , 427 F. 3d 2 9 8 , 3 1 1 -1 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). 2 ar gue s t hatt he fac to f t he pr i o ro f

fe ns e w as a l r e ad y acco unt e d f o rb y t he G ui del i nes by t he appl i c at i on o f t he e i ght

- l eve li ncr eas e a nd co ul d nots erve as t h e basi s f

or t h e di st ri ct court’ s deci si on t o vary upw ard, an d t h a t th e cou rt fa ile dto ta k e in to a c c o u n t h is p e r s o n a l cir c u m s ta n c e s . A s V asqu ez ha s not argu ed that procedural errorexi st s, t h i s c ou rt co n sid e rs th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss of th e se n te n ce u n d e r th e a b u se -ofdi scr et i on st an da rd
. T h e di st ri ctcourtproperl y u sed t h e un cha l l en ged 1 gu i del i n es r an ge as t h e st art i n g poi n tan d i n i t i alb en chm ark. Th e di st ri ctcourt t h e n p r o p e r lyc o n s id e r e dth e s e n t e n c in gfa c t o r s o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ), in c lu d in gV a s q u e z ’s persona lhi st ory an d cha ract eri st i cs. Th e d i st ri ctcou rtw as n otp recl u ded f rom i m pos i ng a de par t ure orvar i ance bas ed o n fac t or s t hatt he G ui del i nes had al r e ad y t ak e n i nt o ac c o unt . M o r e o ve r , t he e xt e nt o f t he v ar i anc e i s c o ns i s t e nt 2
w i t h o t he rs e nt e nc e s t hatt hi s c o ur tha s a f f i r m e d. 3 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.