Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, the court has determined thatthis opinion should 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- 50475 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. RA U L N O RI EG A- CI SN ER O S 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 . 5 : 0 7
- CR- 7 0 4
- ALL B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * RaulN o r i e ga - Ci s ne r o s ( N o r i e ga ) pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o i l l e ga lr e e nt r y i nt o t he Uni t e dS t a t e s f

o l l o wi n gd e p o r t at i o n, u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1326 ( 199 6) . B ecau se N ori ega w as pr e v iou sly con vi ct ed of t h e T exas of

fen se of robbery, hi s of

fen se lev e l w a s a dju ste du p w a rd b y1 6 le v e ls p u rs u a n t t o U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2(b )(1)(A)(i i). S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an t i est eban

- Hernan d ez , 4 6 9 F .3d 3 7 6 , 3 8 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). N o ri ega, argu i n g t h at t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es provi si on w as t oo ha rsh i n li ght o f t he s e nt e nc i ng fact ors setfo r t h i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3( a) ( 20 03 ) , r e que s t e d a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50475

2 sentence of

i m pri sonm en tbel ow t h e for t y- on e t o f i f t y- on e m on t h rang e he faced u n der t h e G u i del i n es. H e al so c h al l en ged t h e cat egori zati on of hi s r obbery convic t i on as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce. ” O verrul i n g N ori ega’ s obj ect i on s, t h e di st ri ct court sentenced h i m t o f ort y- on e m on t h s of

i m pri sonm en tan d a three- year t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease. O n a p p e a l, N o r ie g a c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n reasona bl e becau se i ti s great er t h an ne ce ss ary t o accom pl i sh the goals of sente n cin gs etf

ort h i n § 3553 ( a) . N ori ega argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtfai l ed t o a de qua t e l y c o ns i de rhi s i nno c e ntm o t iva t i o n f o rc o m m i t t i ng a c r i m e he consi ders t an t am ou n tt o i n t erna t i on alt respass, an d h e s t ates t h at det errence i s no tf ur t he r e d by l engt hy i m pr i s o nm e nt , s i nc e he fac e s de po r t at i o n a f t e rhe s e r v e s h is s e n te n c e . W e r e vi 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 n f o rr e as o nab l e ne s s i n l i ght o f th e s e n te n c in g fa c to r s s e t fo r th in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 12 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 59 6 -97 ( 2 0 0 7 ). F i rst, w e con siderw h eth er th e se n ten ce is pro ced u r a lly s o u n d . I

d. a t 5 9 7 . T h e n , w e d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly r e a s o n a b l e , u s i n ga n a b u s e - o f

- d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d . I d. N o r i e gado e s no tc o nt e nd t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter red b y “fai l i ng t o c al c ul at e (ori m pro per l y c al c ul at i ng) t h e G u i del i n es r an ge, t reat i n g t h e G u i del i n es as m an da t ory, fai l i n g t o consi der t h e § 3553 ( a) fact ors, sel ect i n g a sentenc e b a se d o n cl earl y erroneou s fact s, or fai l i n g t o a deq u atel y exp l ai n the chosen sen t en ce – i n cl u di n g an expl an ati on f or a n y d ev i a ti on f

rom the G u i d eli n es ra n ge . ” Id . W e agr ee t hat t he se nt enc e w as procedu ral l y reasona bl e un der G a ll . N o r ie g a in s te a dcla im s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le i n l i ghtof

t he § 3553( a) fac t or s, and t hatt hi s C ou r ts houl d dec l i ne t o a ppl y a pr e s um pt i o n o f

r e as on ab l e ne s s w he n r e vi e w i ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s w i t hi nG u i d eli n es se n ten ce. N orieg a arg u es th a t Kim b ro ug h v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 28 S. C t. 5 5 8 , 5 7 4 -7 5 (2 0 0 7 ) c o m p e ls th a t th e a p p e lla te p r e s u m p tio n s h o u ld n o t a p p ly t o G ui de l i ne s f

o r w hi c h t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n di d no t t ak e i n t o a c c o untN o. 08- 50475

We conclude , h ow ev er , t ha t this ca se doe s not turn on the presumption of 1 reaso nab leness. Wit h or without applicationof the presumption, we fin d the sentenc e reaso nab le.

Norie ga’s attorneyargued a s follows: “We are j ust sayingth at, . . . in this case, 2 consi dering the age of the conviction, his con duct sinceth at time, that giving th at much weight to the conviction, the 16-level enh anc ement , which has no realempirical j ustification for it 3 em pi ri caldata an d n ati on alexperi en ce. W e di sagree w i t h N ori ega’ s r ead i n g of Ki m br ough . The q ue s t i o n pr e s e nt e d i n Ki m br ough w as w h et h er “ a sentence .

. . o ut s i de t h e g u i del i ne s r ang e i s pe rs e unr e as o nab l e w he n i ti s b as e d o n a di s ag r e e m e ntw i t h t he s e nt e nc i ng di s pa ri t y f o rc r ac k a nd p o w de rc o c ai ne offen ses . ” I

d. at 564 (ci t ati on om i t t ed). Sp eak i n g speci f i cal l y to th e cr ack coca ine G u i del i n es, t h e C ou rtsi m pl y rul ed that “ i tw ou l d n otbe an abu se of di s c r e t i o n f

o ra di s t r i c tc o u r tt o c o nc l ude w he n s e nt e nc i ng a pa r t i c ul arde fe nda nt th a t t h e cra ck /p ow d er d i sp a ri ty y i elds a sen ten ce ‘ gr e a te r tha n n ece ssa ry ’to a ch i ev e § 3 5 5 3 (a )’ s p u rp ose s, ev en i n a m i n e-ru n cas e.” Id . a t 57 5 . In Ki m br ough , t h e C ou rt s a id n ot h i n g of t h e app l i cabi l i t y of

t h e presum pti on of r e a s o n a b le n e s s . M o r e o v e r , t h e p r e s u m p tio n ’ s c o n tin u e da p p lic a b ilityto § 2 L 1 .2 s e nt e nc e s i s sup po r t e d byourdec i s i o n i n Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Mal do nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 8 -3 9 (5 th C ir .), c e r t . deni ed , 129 S. C t . 328 ( 200 8) , w h i ch i n vo lve da si m i l a r ch a l l en ge to § 2L 1 . 2 . T h a t Ki m bro ugh al l ow s vari an ce f rom a G u i del i n es s en t en ce because a di st ri ctcou rtcon cl u des t h at pa rt i cul ar sec t i on do e s no tr e f

l e c te m pi r i c alda t a o r nat i o nal e xp e r i e nc e do e s no tc o m pe lt hatt he d i stri ct cou rt w ou l dbe u n rea son a b l e in d ecli n i n gt o do so. T h e a p p ell a te presum pti on i s t h eref ore app l i cabl e i n t h i s c ase. 1 W e th en con siderthe distri ct cou rt’ s ap p l i ca ti on of th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors to N o r i e ga ’ s s e nt e nc e . The di s t r i c tco ur ther e co ns i de r e d Nor i e ga ’ s c l ai m t hatt he G ui de l i nes se nt e nc e w as t o o ha r s h g ive n hi s m o t iva t i o n f o rr e - e nt e r i ng t he c ou n try, th e d ep orta ti on h e face s after relea se from i m p ri son m en t, h i s fa m i ly t i es, an d the sub st an t i alef fectof his 1 9 9 0 c o n v i ct i on f or r obbery. I tal so c o ns i dered t he a r gum e ntt hatt he e nhan c e m e ntw as no te m pi r i c al l y ba s e d. 2N o. 08- 50475

b ein g1 6 , th at isj u sttoomuch .” 4 C on si deri n g N ori ega’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory, rep eated il l egal entri es i n t o the U n i t ed S t ates, an d the m i t i gati n g fact ors setfor t h b y N ori ega, the d i st ri ctcourtchose t o s e nt e nc e N o r i e gaa tt he l o w e nd o f t he ap pl i c ab l e gui de l i ne r ang e . Gi ve n t he r e c o r db e fo r e u s , w e d o n o t b e lie v e th a t t h e c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , No r i e g a ’ s s e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED.