### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50753 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. PE D R O A N TO N I O M U N G U IA

- LE YVA , al so know n as Pedro A nt oni o M ungi a D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant C on soli d a tedw i th N o. 08- 50756

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. PE D R O A N TO N I O M U N G IA , al soknow n as A l ac r an D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8 - CR- 6 4 - ALL U S D C N o . 1 :99 -C R -1 4 9 -2 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50753 c/w N o. 08- 50756

P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e court h as deter m i n ed that t h 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 l i 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.

2 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P ed ro A n ton i o M u n gu i a -L ey va ap p ea l s th e se n t enc e i m p ose df or h i s gu i l ty pl e a c o nvic t i o n o f

v i ol at i ng 8 U . S. C. § 1 32 6( a) a nd (b) b y be i ng f o und i n t he U n ite dS ta te s w ith o u t p e r m is s io n , fo llo w in gre m o v a l . H e a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e , w h ic h fe ll w ith in h is a d v is o r yg u id e lin e s ra n g e , is u n r e a s o n a b le b eca u se itw a s gr ea ter th a n n ece ssa ryto ach i ev e th e se n ten ci n g g oa l s set f orth i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . M ungu i a- Leyva c ont ends t hat hi s se nt enc e sho ul d have been reducedt o accoun tf or t i m e he served pu rsuan tt o hi s 2000 convi ct i on of c o ns pir i ng t o po s s e s s w i t h t he i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c r ac k c o c aine becau se he w ou l d hav e served a shortert erm of i m pri sonm en tif

he h adbeen sentenced f or t he s am e o f

fens e undert he am ended cr ac k c oc ai ne gui deli nes . M ungu i a- Leyva a l so a rg u es, for t h e first ti m e on ap p ea l , tha t a sh orter sen ten ce w a s ap p rop ri a te becau se he presented a l ow ri sk of rec i divi sm an d becau se hi s s i n gl e pri or c o n v ic tio n w a s u s e dto e n h a n c e b o th h is o ffe n s e le v e l a n d t o i n c r e a s e h is cri m i n alhi st ory poi n t s. Relyi ng o n Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S ta tes , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 5 8 , 5 7 5 (20 0 7 ), M u n gu i a- L eyva argu es th at the ap pel l ate pres u m pti on of reasonab l en ess accorded sentences i m posedw i t h i n a defen da n t ’ s properly cal cul ated adv i sory sentenci n g gu i del i n es ran ge shou l d n ota pp l y t o sen t en ces t h at w ere c al cul ated u n der G u i del i n es not derivedf rom em pi ri caldata an d n a ti on alexperi en ce. H o w e v e r , th is co u r t h a s reje c te dth a t a r g u m e n t. Uni t e d St at e sv . Mo ndrago nSa nt i ago , __F. 3d.
__ , N o. 07- 41099, 2009 W L 782894, at* 8- 9 ( 5th C i r . M ar . 26, 2 0 0 9 ); seealso Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Maldo nado , 53 1 F . 3 d33 7 , 33 8 -39 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ) (sup p orting th e con ti n u edap p l i ca b i l i tyN o. 08- 50753 c/w N o. 08- 50756

3 of t he pr es um pti on o f r eas onabl enes s t o s ent enc es bas ed o n non- em pi r i c al l ygroun dedG u i del i n es) . Th e app el l ate pre sum pti on i s app l i cabl e i n t h i s c ase. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 4 3 5 F .3 d5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n det er m i ni ng M ungu i a- Leyva’ s se nt enc e, t he di st r i ctc our tj udge exp l i cit l y sta t ed that he w as consi deri n g t h e adv i sory s en t en ci n g gu i del i n es r ange, t he § 3553( a ) fa ctors , t he r ec or d, and t he PS R . The di st r i c tc our tj udge con sider edthe arg u m en ts pre sen tedat sen ten ci n g a n dde term i n edtha t a gu i d elin e se n te n c e w o u ldb e re a s o n a b le , a p p r o p r ia te , a n d“t a ilo r e dto fit th e facts a n dc ir c u m s t a n c e s o f t h [e ] c r im e a n dth [e ] d e fe n d a n t .” M u n g u ia -L e yv a ’s argu m en t s do not es t abli sh that the di st ri ctcou rterred or abu sed i t s di scr et i on in im p o s in gth a t s e n te n c e . S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). M ungu i a- Leyva has notr ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on o f r eas onabl enes s t hat a tt a c h e s to h is w ith in g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . See A lon zo , 435 F. 3d at554 . M u n gu i a- L eyvaal so app eal s th e sentence i m posedf oll ow in gth e re v ocati on of hi s supervi se d r el eas e f orhi s 2000 c onvi c t i on o f vi ol at i ng 21 U . S. C . § 846 by conspir i n g t o possess w i t h t h e i n t en tt o di st ribu t e coc ai n e bas e . H e d oes not contend t h at th e di st ri ctcourtj u dg e com m i t t ed an y error s du ri n g h i s r evocati on pr o c e e di ngs . Thus , any c o m pl ai nt s M ung ui a- Leyvac o ul d ha ver ai s e d r e ga r di ng th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s h a n d lin g o f th o s e p r o c e e d in g s a r e d e e m e dw a iv e d . S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 2 8 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jim enez , 5 0 9 F .3d6 8 2 , 6 9 3 n .10 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 2 4 (20 0 8 ). T h e j u d g me n t s o f

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