Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and 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. 09- 50269 Su m m ar yC al 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. N IC O LA S A R R O Y O -C A R B A J A L , a ls o k n o w a s N e n e B illa r r u e l, 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 ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 09- C R - 4- 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: * N i col as A rroyo- C arbajal(A rroyo) a pp eal s t h e 86-m on t h sentence i m posed b yt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o l l o wi n ge n t r yo f

a g u i l t y p l e a t o a c h a r g e u n d e r 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 fo rb e i n gille g a llyp r e s e n t in th e U n ite dS ta te s . H e a r g u e s th a t h is sentence i s s u bstantivel y u n reasona bl e un d er 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) becau se U . S . S . G . § 2L 1.2 is n o t em pi ri cal l y based an d gives excess ive w ei gh tt o a d e fe n d a n t’s p r io rco n v ic tio n s in s e tt in gth e o ffe n s e le v e l, th e r e b ye ffe c tiv e ly d o u b le -c o u n tin gt h e d e fe n d a n t’s cr im in a l re c o r dv iah is o ffe n s e le v e l a n dh is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 28, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50269 Document: 00511014870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 09- 50269

2 c r i m i nalhi s t o r y s c o r e . H e c o nt e nds t hatt he se nt e nc e fail s t o t ak e i nt o a c c o unt h is b e n ig n m o tiv e fo rre tu r n in gto th e U n i t e d S ta te s . A r r o y o a s s e r ts , in ad di t i on , th a t h is sentence i s great er t h an necessary t o achi eve t h e goal s of § 3553( a) . A l t hough Arr oyo ac know l edge s t hat pl ai n er r orr evi ew appl i es , he has p re se rv e dth e i s s u e w h e th e r a failu re to o bjec t to th e re a so n a b len e ss of a s e n t e n c e u p o n its im p o s itio n re q u ir e s p la in e r r o rre v ie w . Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3 d3 8 9 , 3 9 1 -9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T o show p l ai n e r r o r , Arr o yo m us t s ho w a f o r fe i t e d e r r o r t hat i s c l e aror o b v io u s a n d th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. Ct . 1 42 3, 1 42 9 ( 20 09 ) . I f he m ak e s s uc h as ho w i ng, t hi s cou rtha s t he di scr et i on t o cor rectt h e err or but onl y i f i tser i ou sly a ffec ts t h e fai rness, 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. W e ha ve rejectedA rroy o’ s ar gu m en t t h a t Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 85, 109 - 10 (2007), di ct ates t h at t h e app el l ate pre su m p t i on of reasona bl en ess w e accor d to se n te n ces i m posedw i t h i n a properl y cal cul ated ad vi sory s en t en ci n g gu i del i n es r an ge shou l d n otapp l y t o sentences t h at w ere c al c ul at ed under G u i d el i nes notder ived f r om em pi r i c aldat a and nat i onal e x p e r ie n c e . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. D u a rte , 5 6 9 F .3 d5 2 8 , 5 2 9 - 3 1 ( 5 t h C ir .), ce rt. d enie d , 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 7 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 3 5 7 , 3 6 6 -6 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S . C t . 192 ( 200 9) . W e ha ve al so r ej ect ed A r r o y o ’ s d o u b l e - c o u n tin ga r g u m e n t. S eeD u a rte , 569 F. 3d at529- 31 & n. 11; Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d at366- 67. The r e c o r d s ho w s t hatt he di s t r i c tc our tb as e d Ar r o yo ’ s s e nt e nc e o n t he a d visorysen ten ci n g g u i d el i n es ra n ge , the i n form a ti on i n the pr ese n ten ce re p ort, andt he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tj udg e i m pl i c i t l y c o ns i de r e d t he a rg u m en ts A rroy o pre sen ted a t sen ten ci n g an d d eterm i n ed th a t a w i t h i n - gu i del i n es sen t en ce w as a pp ropri ate. A rroyo h as not show n err or, m u ch less pl ai n err or, i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s i m posi t i on of sentence, an d h e ha s not r e b u tt e dth e p r e s u m p tio n th a t h is w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is r e a s o n a b le . S ee Case: 09-50269 Document: 00511014870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2010N o. 09- 50269

3 G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 0 -5 1 (20 0 7 ); R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 52 U . S. 338 ( 2007) . AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50269 Document: 00511014870 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/28/2010