Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed 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- 50209 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. J UAN ANT ONI O L UBO , 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U S D C N o . 3 :08 -C R -3 0 4 0 -1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Jua n Ant o ni o Lubo a ppe al s t he f o r t y s i x m o nt h s e nt e nc e i m po s e d b y t he di st ri ctcourtf

ol l ow i n g h i s convic t i on f or i l l egall y reenteri n g t h e U n i t ed S t ates af t er hav i n g been dep ort ed. Th e sentence w as at t h e b ot t om of the G u i del i n es r ange, butLu bo ar gues t hat c ons i der i ng h i s m i l i t ar y s er vi c e, c ul t ural as si m i l at i on, and m ot i ve f or r et urni ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es , hi s sen ten ce w as United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50209

United States v. Campos-Maldonado , 53 1 F .3d 3 37, 338(5t h Ci r . 20 08) (internal 1 qu ot ationmark s an d citationo mitt ed). Id
. 2 Seei d
. at 339 . 3 2 s ubs t ant i ve l y unr e as o nab l e a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve de part ed dow n w ard f

rom t h e rec om m en ded rang e. W h en t h e di st ri ctcourti m poses a sentence w i t h i n a properl y cal cul ated G ui del i nes r ange and gives pr ope rw ei ght t o t he G ui del i nes and t he § 3553( a) fac t o r s , t hi s c o ur tg i ve s “ gr e atde fe r e nc e t o t hats e nt e nc e and w i l li nfe rt hatt he j u dg e h as con si dered al lthe fact ors f or a fai r sen t en ce setf ort h i n t h e G u i del i n es i n l i gh tof

t h e sentenci n g consi derati on s set ou t i n § 355 3( a)
. ” “Adi scr et i on ary 1 s e n te n c e im p o s e d w ith in a p r o p e r lyca lc u la te d gu i d eli n es ra n ge i s p resu m p tiv e ly r e a s o n a b le .” 2 Lubo ’ s m i l i t ar y s e r vi c e , c ul t ur ala s si m i l at i o n, a nd m o t i ve f o rr e t ur ni ng w ere c on si dered b y t h e di st ri ctcou rt . F u rt h er, if the di st ri ctcou rth ad concl u ded t hat appl i c at i on o f U
. S
. S. G s ec t i on 2L1. 2 r es ul t ed i n an advi so r y r ange t hat overst ated L u bo’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory, i tw ou l d n otha ve been pre clu d e d f rom dev i ati n g f

rom t h e ad vi sory ran ge. Th e courtdi d n otdo so, bu ti n st ead chose 3 a s e nt e nc e a tt he b o t t o m o f t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e . Lub o ha s no ts ho w n t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n. Lubo a l s o a r gue s hi s s e n t en ce w as e xc e s s i ve b e c aus e i tfai l e d t o a c c o unt fo rth e s e n te n c e d is p a r ity b e tw e e n d e fe n d a n t s lik e h im s e lf, w h o ca n n o t a v a il t he m se l ves of

t he fas tt r ac k pr ogr am , and def endant s i n di st r i c t s w hi c h have s u c h a p r o g r a m . A s L u b o a c k n o w le d g e s , h is a r g u m e n t is fo r e c lo s e d b yth isN o. 09- 50209

5 2 3F .3 d 5 5 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 4 See United States v. Mask , 3 3 0F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3). 5 3 c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez -Herr era . Abs e nte n b anc 4 c o n s id e r a tio n o ra s u b s e q u e n t r u lin go f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, o n e p a n e l o f th is c o ur tm ayno to ve r r ul e a pr i o rpa ne l ’ s de c i s i o n. 5 Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r u l i n gi s A F F I RMED.