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

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20461 Su m m ar yC al 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. JO S E E L E A Z A R VA R G A S

- G U T IE R R E Z , al so kn ow n as Jose V argas V argas, al so kn ow n as Jose V argas, 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 SD C N o. 4: 09- C R
- 52- 1 B e fo r e D AV IS , S M IT H , a n dD E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Jose E l eazar V argas- G u t i errez (V argas) pl ead ed gui l t y t o il l egal reentry i nt o t he U ni t e d St at e s f o l l o w i ng de por t at i o n. See8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . Vargas c la im s th a t h is 7 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e , w h ic h w a s n e a rt h e h ig h e n do f th e p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te dg u id e lin e s ra n g e , i s s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le a n dth a t h e s h o u ld h ave been gr ant e d ado w nw ar d d e pa r t ur e a nd s e nt e nc e d b e l o w t he g ui de l i nes r a n g e . Va r g a s a s s e r t s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tco ur tdi dn o ta p p l yt h e 1 8 U. S . C. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Ma rch 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20461 Document: 00511063354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20461

2 § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors p rop erly, didn ot tak e into a ccou n t his cu l tu ra lass i m il ati on i n to t he U ni t e d St at e s , c r e at e d a n unwar r ant e d d i s pa r i t y be t w e e n hi s s e nt e nc e a nd t he s ent enc es of

other s c onvi c t ed o f

i l l egalree nt r y, an d i m pos ed a se nt enc e that violated th e E i gh th A m en d m en t’ s b a r a ga i n st cru el a n d u n u su a lp u n is h m en t. Ad efen da n tw h ose m ot i on fora dow n w ard d epa rt u re has been overrul ed m ay argu e on ap pea lt h at hi s s en t en ce w as un reasona bl e becau se th e di st ri ct court “fai l ed ad equ ately t o consi der fact ors coun sel i n g i n favor of a dow n w ard d ep a rtu re.” Uni t e d S t at e sv. Ni konov a , 4 8 0 F .3 d3 7 1 , 3 7 5 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 12 8 S. Ct . 1 63 ( 20 07 ) . Rea s o nab l e ne s s r e vi e w i s b if ur c at e d; if

ar e vi e w o f

t he sentence f

or p rocedural err or r eveals non e, t h e app el l ate c ou rtt h en deter m i n es w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 200 7) . I f err or has been preserved, an app el l ate c ou rtrevi ew i n g f or rea son a b l en ess “m ere l y a sk s w h eth er th e tri a lcou rt ab u sed its discreti on . ” R ita v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). S u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n a b le n e s s is d e te r m in e d in lig h t of th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) s e n te n c in gfa c to r s . G a ll , 552 U . S. at49- 50. A l t hough he a sk ed for as ent enc e b el ow ort he gui deli nes r ange, V ar gas d idn o t s p e c ific a llyo bje c t t o th e s e n te n c e th a t w a s im p o s e d . C o n s e q u e n tly , itis q u e s tio n a b le w h e th e rh e is e n tit le d t o re v ie w fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n o rm e r e ly for p l a i n erro r. S ee Uni t e d S t at e sv. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 357, 361 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S . C t . 192 ( 200 9) . B ecau se V argas i s un able t o show ei t h er abu se of

di scr et i o n or pl ai n err or, how ever, w e neednot deci de w h i ch st an da rd of

revi ew app l i es. W h ile V a r g a s d e c la r e dto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t h a t t h e P S R in c o r r e c tly r ec oun ted h i s p r i orc onvi c t i on f oraggr avat ed r obbe r y, iti s c l eart hatV ar gas fai l ed to persua de the di st ri ctcourtt h at th is w a s so an d that a dow n w ard de pa r t ur e w as i n o r de r . A s e nt e nc i ng c o ur t m ay r e l y o n i nf o r m at i o n i n t he PSR i n m ak i n g fact u aldeter m i n ati on s abou ta sentence un l ess t h e defen da n tshow s, b ycr e d ib le r e b u tt a l e v id e n c e , th a t t h e P S R is u n tr u e o rin a c c u r a te . Un i t ed St at e s v. Ford , 5 58 F. 3d3 71 , 3 76 - 77 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 9) . Al t ho ughitm ad e no Case: 09-20461 Document: 00511063354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20461

3 e x p lic it c r e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n s , w h e n t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d o p te dt h e P S R in t h e face of

V argas’ s obj ect i on s iti m pl i cit l y rej ect ed V argas’ s acc ou n tof t h e pri or c r i m e . The di s t r i c tc o ur tw as no tr e quir e d t o ac c e ptVar ga s ’ s s e l f

- s e rvi ng de c l ar at i o ns , m ad e w i t h t he pur po s e of red u ci ng hi s s e nt e nc e , a bo utt he c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f le a d in gto h is p r io rco n v ic tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B u enrost ro , 8 6 8 F .2d1 3 5 , 1 3 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). V ar gas ’ s par i ty a r gum enti s equal l y unavai l i ng. I n co nsi der i ng an a p p r o p r ia t e s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t a c c o u n t fo r“t h e n e e dto a v o id unw ar r ant e d s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s am o ng de fe nda nt s w i t h s i m i l arr e c o r ds w ho have be en f

ound gu i l ty of sim i l arc onduct . ” § 3553( a) ( 6) . Bu tbe c ause V ar gas id e n tifie dn o d e fe n d a n t w h o s e s itu a tio n w a s s im ila rto h is o w n , h e w a s u n a b le to e s ta b lis h a n ys e n te n c in gd is p a r ity . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u h on , 440 F. 3d 711, 7 2 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Var ga s ’ s a s s e r t i o n o f a n Ei ghth Am e ndm en tcl ai m i s c o nc l us o r y and uns upp o r t e d b y l e ga lanalys i s . An ap pe l l at e co ur ti s notre quir e d t o s e ar c h t he r e c o r dto fin d th e le g a l b a s is fo ra n is s u e . Un i t ed S t ate s. v. B race , 145 F. 3d 247, 255 ( 5th C i r. 199 8) ( en ban c) . B ecau se V argas i s r epresented b yc o u n selon a p p e a l, h is b r ie f is n o t en tit le dto lib e r a l co n s tr u c tio n . S ee B easley v. McCot t er , 7 9 8 F .2 d1 1 6 , 1 1 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). Is s u e s m u s t b e b r ie fe dto b e p r e s e rv e d . F ED . R. A PP . P. 28( a) ( 9) . Acc or di ngl y, t hi s i ss ue i s notpr es erved and w i l lnotbe c o ns i de r e d. B e c a u s e it w a s w it h in th e p r o p e r lyc a lc u la t e dg u id e li n e s r a n g e , V a r g a s ’s s e n te n c e is e n tit le dto ap r e s u m p tio no f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . SeeUni t e d S t at e sv. Mares , 402 F . 3d511 , 519 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) . Th e di st ri ctcourt , m oreover, c o ns i de r e d Var ga s ’ s a r gum e ntf o ras e nt e nce bel o w t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e b ut dete rm in e d t h at th e rec ord an d the fact ors setf ort h i n § 3553 ( a) cal l ed f or sentence at t h e hi gh endof t h at r an ge. V argas h as n ot favored u s w i t h an y good r e a s o n fo rd is tu rb in gth a t d e c is io n . S ee G a ll , 552 U . S. at51. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-20461 Document: 00511063354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2010