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 circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40414 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. I SM A E L VA LA D E Z- SA LIN A S, al soknow n as Juan V al adez

- C ar m ona, al so kn ow n as Jose Lu i s R an gel

- H erna n dez 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 SDC N o . 7 : 0 7
- CR- 1 2 4 7
- ALL
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D E N N IS an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * I s m ae lVal ad e z - Sali nas a ppeal s hi s 3 0- m o nt h s e nt e nc e f o rb e i ng f

o und i l l egally i n t h e U n i t ed S tates f ol l ow i n g previ ou s deportat i on i n vi ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326 . H e a rg u e s th a tt h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n basi n g a f ou r- l evel upw ar d depart ure , i n part , u p on hi s O c t obe r2007 ar r es tf orpos se ss i on o f

159 p o u n d s o f m a riju a n a(20 0 7 p o ss e ss ion a rr e st). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40414

2 An app e l l at e c o ur t ’ s revi ew o f as e nt e nc e m us ts t ar tw i t h t he i s s ue w het hert he di st r i c tc our t c om m i t t ed any “ si gni f i c ant pro c edur aler r or , s uch as fail i ng t o c al c ul at e (o ri m pr o pe r l y c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e , t r e at i ng t he G u id e li n e s as m an da t ory, fai l i n g t o consi der t h e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553 ( a) fact ors, s e le c tin gas e n te n c e b a s e do n cle a r lye r r o n e o u s fa c ts , o rfa ilin gto a d e q u a te ly ex p l a i n the ch ose n sen ten ce.” G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 7 ). If t h e sentenci n g deci si on i s p ro ce d u ral l y soun d, t h e app el l ate c ou rtt h en con sider s “ t he s ubst ant ive r eas onabl enes s of t he s ent enc e i m pos ed underan a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio ns ta n d a r d .”Uni t e d St at es v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 7 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Thi s c o ur tr e c o gni z e s t hr e e t yp e s of s e nt e nc e s : ( 1) as e nt e nc e w i t hi n t he gu i del i n es r an ge, ( 2) an u pw ard depa rt u re ordow n w ard d epa rt u re provi ded f or byt he G ui de l i ne s , a nd ( 3) a no n- gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , o r va r i anc e , t hat i s o ut s i de th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 440 F . 3d704 , 706
- 07 (5t h C i r. 2006) . I n t he i nst antc as e, t he di st r i c tc our ts peci fi ca l l y not ed thati tw as i m po s i ng an upwar d d e pa r t ur e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5 K 2. 0( a) ( 3) . The i ns t ant case t h u s i n volves a dep art u re pursu an tt o t h e G u i del i n es. R eason ableness r evi ew , i n t h e contextof a gu i del i n es d epa rt u re, requi res t hi s c o ur tt o e va l uat e bo t h “ t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o de pa r tupwar dly and th e ex ten t of

tha t d e p a r tu re for ab u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 4 42 F. 3d3 45 , 3 47 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i on om i t t e d) . H o w e ve r , w he n, a s he r e , ade fe nda ntfail s t o o bj e c tt o t he r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e dinth e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e v ie w is fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez- R od rigu ez , 530 F . 3d 381 , 387
- 88 (5t h C i r. 200 8) . T o show pl ai n err or, t h e app el l an tm u st sh ow an err or th at i s c l ear or 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 r ig h ts . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 538 F. 3d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), c e r t . de ni e d, 20 09 W L 56591 (Jan. 12, 2000) ( N o. 08- 7 5 5 9 ). If t he appel l ant m akes suc h a sho w i ng, t hi s c our t has t he di sc r et i on to c o r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n lyif it s e r io u s lya ffe c ts t h e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b licN o. 08- 40414

3 r e 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 h en th e di st ri ctcourti m poses a gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , i ncl udi ng a s e nt e nc e w i t h ade pa r t ur e pur s uantt o t he G u i del i n es, t h i s court i n fers t h at t h e di st ri ct court h as consi dered a l lt h e fact ors n ecess ary u n der t h e G u i del i n es f or a fai r s en t en ce and w i l lrarely say that s u ch as e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le . Uni t e d St at e s v . Raj w ani , 47 6 F . 3 d24 3 , 24 9 ( 5 th C ir .) , m o dif

i e d o n o t he rg ro unds , 4 7 9 F .3 d9 0 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A di st ri ct court i n corr ect l y ap pl i es t h e G u i del i n es by basi n g a dep art u re upon a fac t ort hatt he Sent enc i ng C om m i ssion has e xpr es sly r ej ec t ed as an a p p r o p r ia te g r o u n dfo rd e p a r tu r e . Wi l l i am s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 503 U . S. 193, 200 (1 9 9 2 ). S e c tio n 4A 1 .3 (a )(3 ), p .s ., pro vi des t hat a “p r io r a r r e s t re c o r dits e lf s h a ll no tb e c o ns i de r e d f

o rpur po s e s o f

a n up w ar d d e pa r t ur e . ” I n Uni ted St at e s v. Jon es , 4 4 4 F .3 d4 3 0 , 4 3 4
- 3 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), th is co u r t h e ldth a t itw a s p la in er r orf ora di st r i c tc our tt o t ake the “ m er e fac t of pri or ar r es t s i nt o a c c ount” at se nt enc i ng abs entf

i ndi ngs by t he c our t , s upport ed byr eli abl e i nf or m at i on, t hat th e crim esunderlying the arre sts h a dactu a l l y b ee n com m i tted b y th e d efen d a n t. “A rres ts, stan d i n g a l on e, d o n o t c on sti tu te [ su ch ] reli a b l e inform a ti on . ” Id . at 4 3 4 . E ven a ssum i n g t h at the di st ri ctcou rtp l ai n l y erred by basi n g t h e up w ard d ep a rtu re, i n pa rt, on the 20 0 7 po sse ssion arre st, rev ersa li s n ot w a rra n ted . In Jon es , 444 F. 3d at438, t hi s c our t hel d t hat w hen a di st r i c t c our tpl ai nl y e r r s by basi n g a dep art u re upon a pri or arr est , revers ali s not w arran t ed i f “t h e rec ord a s aw h o le d o e s n o t in d ic a te th a t itis re a s o n a b lyp r o b a b le [ th e d e fe n d a n t] w o u ld have r ec eived a l es se rsent enc e” i f the di st r i c tcour th ad n otso er r ed. Al t hough th e d ist ri ctcourtm en t i on ed V al ad ez’ s 2007 possess i on arres tm ore th an once du ri n g sentenci n g, i tem ph asi zed that it s c on si derati on of an up w ard d epa rt u re w as b a s e d“ m a i n ly” o nVa l a d e z ’ s 2 0 0 6T e xa s c o nvi c t i o n f o rpo s s e s s i ng 10 0 po unds of m arij u an a ( 200 6 possessi on convi ct i on ) . I nde e d, i n an n ou n ci n g t h e i m posi t i on of t he u p w a rd d ep ar t ure , t he di st r i c tc our tex pl i c i t l y bas ed itupon t he 2006 po s s e s s i o n c o nvi c t i o n a nd m ad e no m e nt i o n o f t he 20 07 po s s e s s i o n ar r e s t . TheN o. 08- 40414

4 r ec or d as a w hol e thu s doe s noti ndi c at e thati ti s r eas onably pr obabl e that V a la d e z w o u ldh a v e r e c e iv e dalo w e rs e n t e n c e b u tfo rth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e 2 0 0 7 p o s s e s s io n a r r e s t. S ee Jon es , 444 F. 3d at438. V al ad ez al so argue s th a tt h e up w ard d epa rt u re w as excess ive. Sect i on 5 K 2 . 0 (a)( 3 ) p rov i d es th a t an u p w a rdde p a rtu re is a p p rop ri a te if a ca se p rese n ts a ci rcum st an ce “t ak en i n t o consi derati on i ndeter m ini n g t h e gu i del i n es r an ge, i f t h e courtd et erm i n es t h at s u ch ci rcum st an ce i s present i n t h e of fen se t o a d e g r e e s u b s ta n tia llyine x c e s s o f, o rs u b s ta n tia llyb e lo w , th a t w h ic h o r d in a r ily i s i nvo lve d i n tha tk i n d o f o f fe ns e . ” The di s t r i c tc o ur tde t e r m i ne d thatt he pre se nt enc e r epo r tdi d not adequat ely r ef l ec tt he s er i ous nes s of V al adez ’ s 2006 possessi on con vi ct i on . G iven tha tV al ad ez a dm i t t edl y possessed 100 pou n ds of m ar ij uana , he fail s t o s ho w t hatt he di s t r i c tpl ai nl y e r r e d b y c o nc l udi ng t hathe i n t en ded t o di st ribu t e t h e m arij u an a an d that t h e 200 6 possessi on convi ct i on e ffe c tiv e lyc o n s tit u te dad r u gtr a ffic k in go ffe n s e u n d e r§ 2 L 1 .2 . S ee § 2 L 1 .2 c o m m e nt . (n. 1 ( B) (iv) ) (po s s e s s i o n wi t h inte ntt o di s t r ibut e a m o ng dr ug tr a ffic k in go ffe n s e s ); cf . Un i t ed S t ate s v. K

ate s , 174 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) ( “ I nt entt o di st r ibut e m ay be i nfer r ed f r om the pos se ss i on of a quant i t y o f

dr ugs t oo l arge t o b e u sed by t h e defen da n tal on e. ” ) ( 21 U . S . C . § 841 d rug p osses si on c a s e ). F u r th e r , g iv e n th a t d r u gtr a ffic k in go ffe n s e s q u a lifyfo r , a t m in im u m , a 1 2 -le v e l in c r e a s e ino ffe n s e le v e l, see § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)( 1 )(A) a n d( B ), V a l a d ez fa i l s to show t h at th e di st ri ctcourtpl ai n l y erred i n im posi n g t h e m ore m odest i n crease a t is s u e . S ee R od rigu ez- R od rigu ez , 530 F. 3d at387- 88. V a la d e z a ls o c o n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db yfa ilin gto a d e q u a te ly exp l ai n how t h e § 355 3( a) fact ors j u st i f y h i s s en t en ce. Th e di st ri ctcourtst ated t h at ith adcon si dered the § 355 3( a) fact ors an d speci f i cal l y m en t i on ed the n eed t o avoi d u n w arran t ed d i spari t y betw een V al ad ez an d other si m i l arl y si t u ated defenda n t s w i t h pri or dru g t raf f i cki n g convic t i on s. Th e di st ri ctcourtw as not requ i red t o en gag e i n “ robot i c i n can t ati on s t h at each st atutor y fact or has been c o n s id e r e d .” Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 440 F. 3d 704, 707 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (i nt er nalN o. 08- 40414

5 q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). F u r th e r , b e c a u s e V a la d e z ’ s s e n te n c e is ag u id e lin e s s e n te n c e , th is co u r t in fe r s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s co n s id e r e da ll t h e fa c to r s n e c e s s a r yu n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . Se eRaj w ani , 4 7 6 F. 3 d a t249. V a la d e z fa ils to s h o w th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t p la in ly e r r e db yfa ilin gto s u ffic ie n tly a r tic u la te its a p p l i c a tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . S ee R od rigu ez- R od rigu ez , 530 F. 3d at387- 88. A l t hough V al adez doe s noti ndi c at e w hathe be l i eve s w oul d have bee n an ap pr o pr i at e g ui de l i ne s r ang e , ha d t he di s t r i c tco ur tnotupwar dly de pa r t e d f o ur l evel s, V al ad ez’ s gui del i n es r an ge w ou l d h ave been 15-21 m on t h s of i m pri so nm entr at hert han t he 24- 30 m ont h ra nge underw hi c h he w as sentenced. Th e ext en tof t h e vari an ce i s l ess t h an ot h er sentences t h at th i s c ou rt h a s a ffir m e d . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ran t ley, 537 F. 3d 347, 348- 50 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( ap pl yi n g pl ai n err or r evi ew an d aff i rm i n g a sentence t h at w as 253 % hi gh er th a n th e to p o f th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e ); Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 440 F. 3d 704, 708 n. 5, 709- 10 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (uph ol di ng depar t ure f r om gui del i nes r ange m a x i m u m o f 2 7 m o n th s to 6 0 m o n th s ); Jon es , 4 4 4 F . 3 da t4 3 3 (u p h o l d i ng de pa r t ur e f

r o m g ui de l i ne s r ang e m ax i m um o f 5 7 m o nt hs t o s t at ut o r y m ax i m um o f 1 2 0 m o n th s ); Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 417 F. 3d 483, 492 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (uph ol di ng depar t ure f r om gui del i n es ra n ge m axi m um of 41 m ont hs t o 1 20 m o n th s ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. D aughenbaugh , 49 F. 3d 171, 174- 75 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) (u p h o ld in gd e p a rtu re fro m m a x im u m of 7 1 m o n th s to 2 4 0 m o n th s). AF F I RMED.