Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50017

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

HUGO GONZALEZ-LAGUNA,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:08-CR-1822-ALL

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Gonzalez-Laguna appeals his 72-month sentence for illegally

reentering the United States following a previous deportation, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to explain adequately the non-Guidelines sentence. He argues that his sentence

was substantively unreasonable because the sentence was imposed arbitrarily,

without reference to the insufficiency of the Guidelines range, and because the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50017

2

district court failed to make factual findings to support its reliance on any of the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

This court reviews a district court’s sentencing decision for abuse of

discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). This court first

determines whether the district court committed any significant procedural

error, such as failing to explain adequately its decision to deviate from the

Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there is no significant procedural

error, this court reviews the sentence for substantive reasonableness. Id.

Although Gonzalez-Laguna preserved his objection to the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence, he failed to object in the district court to the

district court’s explanation of the sentence. Plain error review therefore governs

this issue. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.

2009), cert. denied, No. 08-11099, 2009 WL 1849974 (Oct. 5, 2009). To show

plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and

that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423,

1429 (2009).

The sentencing court must state “the reasons for its imposition of the

particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “The sentencing judge should set

forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking

authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

The district court’s explanation reflects that the court expressly considered

the § 3553(a) factors. The district court’s statements that Gonzalez-Laguna is

“dangerous coming back to the [United] States” and that “you and I know that

once you serve this time, you are going to try to find a way to come back,” reflect

that the district court considered Gonzalez-Laguna’s history of violent criminal

behavior and repeated illegal reentry into the United States, as noted by the

Government at sentencing and in the PSR, as well as the need to protect the
No. 09-50017

3

public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2)(C). The district court also explicitly stated

that the sentence was calculated to deter Gonzalez-Laguna from future criminal

activity and to ensure that Gonzalez-Laguna understood the seriousness of his

offense. Gonzalez-Laguna has not shown that the district court committed clear

or obvious error in its explanation of the non-Guidelines sentence. 

Gonzalez-Laguna’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. In light of

Gonzalez-Laguna’s long history of violent crimes and his continued flouting of

the law by returning to the United States despite prior removals, he has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to 72

months in prison. Further, this court has upheld variances considerably greater

than the increase in Gonzalez-Laguna’s sentence. See United States v. Brantley,

537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming a variance from the Guidelines

maximum of 51 months to a sentence of 180 months); United States v. Saldana,

427 F.3d 298, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding the imposition of consecutive

sentences that effectually quadrupled the maximum Guidelines sentence);

United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2005) (affirming an

increase from the Guidelines maximum of 41 months to a sentence of 120

months).

 Gonzalez-Laguna has not shown that the district court imposed an

unreasonable sentence. 

* * *

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.