T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 29,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. NAB OR M AR T I NE Z - VI L L A, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3307 ( D. Ct . No . 0 6 - CR- 1 0 0 4 9 - W EB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , BARRETT and BROR BY , S e n io r C irc u it Judg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.-2-

A ppel l antN aborM art i nez- V i l l a pl ed gui l tyt o one countof r eentryof a deport ed al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyi n vi ol at i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d (b )(2 ). H e n o w a p p e a ls h is s e n ten c e , co n ten d in g it i s u n rea so n ab le w h en v iew ed u n d er the 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) sen tenc ing fa ctors beca us e of hi s m edi cal pr obl ems and a dvance d age. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and affi r m M r . M ar t i nezV illa ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound A ft erM r . M art i nez- V i l l a pl ed gui l ty , the pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a p re se n ten c e re p o rt c a lcu latin g M r. M a rtin e z -V ill a ’s s e n ten c e u n d e r th e a p p lica b le U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ” or“U . S. S. G . ”) . T he pr obat i on o fficer set h is ba se o ffen se lev el at eigh t pu rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (a), i ncr eas ed hi s bas e l evel s i xt een l evel s pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) due t o a p ri or fel on ycon vict i on for a drug tr afficki ng offense, and reduced his offense l e v e l b yth r e e l e v e l s fo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i typ u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 3 E 1 . 1 , resu lt ing in a to tal o ffen se lev el of tw en ty -on e. T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rt a lso se t M r. M a rtin e z -V ill a ’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o rya t III, w h ich , tog e th e r w ith a n o ffe n s e l e v e l o f

tw e n ty- o n e , r e s u l t e d i n a G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e o f fo r t ys ix to fif ty-s e v e n m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.-3-

M r . M art i nez- V i l l a fi l ed a for m al w r i t t en obj ect i on t o the pr es ent ence re p o rt re q u e stin g a “ d e p a rtu re ” f ro m th e fo rty -six - to fif ty -se v e n -m o n th G u idelines ran g e b ase d o n h is ad v an ce d ag e a n d p o o r he alth . In su p p o rt , M r. M a rtin e z -V ill a p o in ted o u t h e is s ix ty -se v e n y e a rs o ld a n d h is h e a lth is d e ter io ra tin g , g iv e n h e : 1 ) su ffe rs f ro m d iab e tes w h ich is n o t u n d e r c o n tro l; 2 ) is bl i nd i n hi s r i ghtey e, has di m i ni s hed vi s i on i n hi s l eftey e, and expe r i ence s t ear i ng and s ens i t i vi tyt o l i ghti n bot h ey es ; 3) s uffe r s fr om s ever e hea dache s r equi r i ng hi m t o l i e dow n; 4) has a chr oni c, s i gni fi cantand uncontr ol l abl e cough w hi ch ca us es a choki ng s ens at i on and maybe r el at ed t o tuber cul os i s ; 5) p re v io u slyh a d su rg e ryfo r v a ric o se v e in s; a n d 6 ) h a s v e rylittle m o b ili tyd u e to thes e combi ned hea l th i s s ues . H e furthercl ai m ed a for ty - s i x- t o fi fty - s evenm on th sentence w ou l d b e i nap propri at e beca use of : 1) hi s m edical problem s, w h i c h w o u l d p r e v e n th i m f r o m c o m m i t t i n g f

u tu r e c r i m e s ; 2 ) h i s u n e m p l o ya b i l i t y; and 3) the mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance underw hi ch he i l l egal l yr eturned t o the U ni t ed St at es , w hi ch i nvol ved r epai r i ng hi s hom e i n K ans as aft eri t s bur gl ary . W hi l e he acknow l edged one fac t oral one mi ghtnotw arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence , he s ugges t ed the combi nat i on of thes e fa ct or s di d w arr anta l es s er s e n te n c e . T h e g o v ern m en t r esp o n d ed , ex p lai n ing n o co m p ell ing g rou n d s fo r a dow nw ar d departur e exi s t ed, gi ven M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a’ s thi r ty - y earhi s t or yofSpeci fi cal l y , § 5H 1. 1 s t at es , i n part , “[a ] ge ( i ncl udi ng y outh) i s not 1 or di nar i l yr el evanti n det erm i ni ng w hethera depa r tur e i s w arr ant ed, ” butt hat “ [ a ]g e m a yb e a re a so n to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd in a c a se in w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t is el der l yand i nfi r m and w her e a for m of puni s hm ents uch as hom e conf i nement m i ghtbe equa l l yeff

i ci entas and l es s cos t l yt han i ncar cer at i on. ” Sect i on 5H 1. 4 s t at es , i n part , “[p] hy s i cal condi t i on orappea r ance , 2 inclu d ing p h y siqu e, i s n o t ord inaril yrelev an t i n d eterm ining w h ethe r a d ep arture m aybe w arr ant ed, ” exc ept“an e xtr aor di naryphy s i cal i m pai r m entm aybe a re a so n to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd ,” s u c h a s “ in th e c a se o f a se rio u slyin firm d e fe n d a n t” w her e “home det ent i on m aybe as eff i ci entas , and l es s cos t l yt han, i m pr i s onm ent . ” -4- m aki ng the ar duous tr i p back a nd for th betw een the U ni t ed St at es and M exi co d esp it e h is cl aim o f m ed ical pro b lem s an d that h is al lege d m ed ical pro b lem s are comm on and do nott ake hi m out s i de the hea r t l and of c r i m i nal defe ndant s . T he p ro b a tio n o ffice r re sp o n d e d b yp o in tin g o u t th a t U .S .S .G . § 5 H 1 .1 sta tes a g e is notor di nar i l yr el evantunl es s the defendanti s i nfi r m and home confi nement m i ght be equal l y eff

i ci ent and l es s cos t l y . H e al s o expl ai ned that , under 1 U . S . S . G . § 5 H 1 . 4 , p h y sical co n d it ion is no t ord inaril yrelev an t fo r a d ep arture unl es s an extr aor di naryphy s i cal i m pai r m entexi s t s . T he pr obat i on offi cert hen 2 concl uded he di d notbel i eve M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a’ s des cr i bed medi cal condi t i ons o ra g e r o s e t o th e l e v e l o f a n “ e x tr a o r d i n a ryp h y s i c a l i mp a i r me n t , ” ma d e h i m a “s er i ous l yi nfi r m defe ndant , ” orw oul d excl ude hi m fr om t he hea r t l and of other ca ses. T o il lustrat e h is po int, the p rob ati o n o fficer n o ted M r. M arti n ez -V il la’s age a nd al l eged medi cal i m pai r m ent s di d notkeep hi m fr om oper at i ng a mot or veh i cl e w hen he w as st op ped i n co nn ect i on w i th the i nst ant offense o r otherw i se-5-

preven thim from m ai ntai ning his m ob i l i tyi n the com m un i tyof L i beral , K ansas, w h e re h is h o u s e is lo c a te d . A ts ent enci ng, M r . M art i nez- V i l l a r enew ed the s ame depar tur e r eques tand the d istri ct co u rtjud g e re sp o n d ed b yfirstex p resslyrestati n g M r. M arti n ez -V il la’s ar gum ent s i n s uppor tof s uch a r eques t , not i ng hi s cl ai m s of poorheal th, i ncl udi ng hi s al l egat i ons of di abet es ; bl i ndnes s i n the r i ghtey e; di ffi cul tys eei ng w i th the l e f te ye ; l i g h ts e n s i t i v i ty; b a d h e a d a c h e s ; c h r o n i c c o u g h ; a n d a l a c k o f m o b i l i ty, caus i ng hi m nott o be a r e- offe nd thr eat . T he di s tr i ctcour tthen or al l yr eci t ed the pol i cys t at ement s i n U . S. S. G . § 5H 1. 1 and § 5H 1. 4 and found M r . M ar t i nezV i l l a’ s m edi cal condi t i ons di d notr i s e t o the l evel of “e xtr aor di nary ” forthe purpos e of gr ant i ng a depa r tur e. T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o det erm i ned M r . M ar t i nezV i l l a’ s cl ai m of l i m i t ed mobi l i tyw as i ncr edi bl e and i ncons i s t entbeca us e he r ece nt l yoper at ed a mot orvehi cl e and w as abl e t o r etur n t o the U ni t ed St at es aft er h is d e p o rt a tio n tw o y e a rs a g o . A ft erM r . M art i nez- V i l l a s t at ed he ha d no otherobj ect i ons t o the pr es ent ence r eport , t he di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange of fo rty -six to fif

ty -se v e n m o n th s a n d se n ten c e d M r. M a rtin e z -V ill a to fo rty -six m o n th s im p riso n m e n t fo llo w e d b ytw o y e a rs s u p e rv ise d re lea se . In so d o in g , it stat ed itco n side red the fac tors set fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d the a d v isory-6-

G ui del i nes r ange a nd t hata s ent ence atthe l ow end of thatr ange w oul d s erve the purpos e of i ncapa ci t at i ng and puni s hi ng M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a fora per i od of t i m e, and the s upervi s ed r el eas e w oul d al l ow hi s r ei nt egr at i on i nt o the comm uni tyas w e ll as a d e ter re n c e f

ro m su b se q u e n t cr im in a l b e h a v io r if h e is e v e r la w f

u lly re le a s e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . I I . D i s cus s i on O n ap p ea l, M r. M arti n ez -V il la arg u es th e d istri ct co u rt ’s refu sal t o d ep art dow nw ar d bel ow the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange due t o hi s combi ned s er i ous m edi cal pr obl ems and a dvance d age w as “unr eas onabl e” unde rthe s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . W hi l e M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a ac know l edges th e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e wa s c o r r e c t l yc a l c u l a t e d , h e c o n t e n d s th e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and thatthe forty - s i xm onth s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. I n s uppor t , M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a out l i nes the v a rio u s m e d ica l ailm e n ts p re v io u slyra ise d a n d a d d re ss e d b yth e d istric t co u rt, an d co n tend s itd id n o t con side r th em “in c o m b ination w ith ea ch o ther, bu t r athe r, ind ep en d en tl yfro m ea ch o ther.” In a d d it ion , h e su g g ests the d istri ct co u rt e rro n e o u slyfa iled to c o n sid e r h is a g e a s a fa c to r, g iv e n it d id n o t ex p licitly m ent i on hi s age i n i t s deci s i on. Fi nal l y , M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a does notr efe r ence e ith e r U .S .S .G . § 5 H 1 .1 o r § 5 H 1 .4 , w h ich h e p re v io u slyra ise d in su p p o rt o f h is re q u e s t fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re .1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) p rov ides , in p art, the c o u rtsh all co n side r: 3 ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t or yand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed -- ( A ) t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect forthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he offens e; (B ) to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; (C ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- T h e g o v ern m en t op p o ses th e a p p ea l. Itp o ints ou t M r. M arti n ez -V il la’s m e d ica l p ro b lem s a re u n d o c u m e n ted a n d th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d h is im m o b ili ty c laim s in c re d ib le, g iv e n th e u n c o n tes ted fa c ts h e w a s a b le to d riv e a c a r a n d c o u ld tr avel fr om M exi co t o the U ni t ed St at es , w hi ch the r ecor d s how s he di d forthe purpos e of maki ng r epai r s t o hi s hous e. A s t o the age i s s ue, the governm ent poi nt s outt he di s tr i ctcourtj udge s ent enci ng M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a w as ni nety - ni ne y ear s ol d, ort hi r ty - tw o y ear s ol derthan M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a, w hi ch i m pl i es he c o n s id e re d M r. M a rt in e z -V illa ’s a g e a n d a lle g e d in fir m ity.

W e begi n ourdi s cus s i on bycl ar i fy i ng thata s ent ence above orbel ow the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on an a ppl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the G ui del i nes i s r efe r r ed t o as a “de partur e, ” w hi l e a s ent ence above orbel ow the re co m m en d ed G u idelines ran g e thro u g h ap p li ca ti o n o f th e se n tenc ing fa ctors i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i s cal l ed a “ var i ance . ” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 476 F. 3d 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 tr ea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti v e m an n er; (3 ) t h e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le ; ... ( 6) the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o ffe n s e . -8- 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 1 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c re q u e st d e n ied ). T h u s, o n a p p e a l, i t is evi dentM r . M art i nez- V i l l a i s now cl ai m i ng hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e under the § 35 53 (a) fact ors and a v ari ance sh ou l d b e app l i ed fo r a bel ow -G uidel i nesr ange s ent ence . H e bas es hi s cl ai m on the s ame heal th and age i s s ues he pr evi ous l yr ai s ed t o s uppor thi s dow nw ar d departur e underU . S. S. G . §§ 5H 1. 1 and 5H 1. 4. W hi l e M r . M art i nez- V i l l a di d notpr evi ous l yfr ame hi s obj ect i ons expr es s l yi n the cont extof a va r i ance under§ 3553( a) , w e do notr equi r e a d e fe n d a n t to m a k e su c h a n o bjec tio n in o rd e r to p re se rv e a c laim h is s e n ten c e is u n re a s o n a b ly lo n g u n d e r t h o s e fa c to rs . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es - D uenas , 461 F .3 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), pet i t i on f orcer t . f

i l ed( N ov. 22, 2006) ( N o. 06- 7990) . I ns t ead, w e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s the s ent ence ’ s l ength, as gui ded by th e fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See i d.

W e have det erm i ned a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s att ache s t o a s e n te n c e , lik e h e re , w h ic h is w ith in th e c o rr e c tly-c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ra n g e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 -54 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ). W e re q u ire re a so n a b len e ss in tw o re sp e c ts – “ th e len g th o f th e se n ten c e , as w e ll-9-

as th e m etho d b yw h ich th e se n tenc e w as c alcu lat ed , ” the lat ter of w h ich M r. M a rt in e z -V illa d o e s n o t c o n te s t. Id. at1055 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . I f the di s tr i ct court“pr oper l ycons i der s the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence s the defe ndantw i thi n thatr ange, the s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, ” but“[t ] he d e fe n d a n t m a yre b u t th is p re su m p tio n b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t th e se n ten c e is unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the others ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Id. In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e a p p lica b le G ui del i nes r ange, w e r evi ew i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id. at1054 . W e have hel d “[t ] her e i s no ques t i on that , i n addi t i on t o gui di ng our r e a s o n a b l e n e s s r e v i e w o n a p p e a l , th e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) m us tbe cons i der ed bythe di s tr i ctcour ti t s el f w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2006) . W her e, as her e, t he di s tr i ctcourtal l ow s a defendantt o m ake a n ar gum ent thatanyof thes e fa ct or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence and then i m pos es a s ent ence atthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange, w e have s ai d thi s “may fa irlyb e re a d a s a f

u n c tio n a l rejec tio n o f [ h is] a rg u m e n ts a n d a d e n ial o f h is r eques tfora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . ” Id. W h en ad d ressing a d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, “ [ w ]e d o n o t re q u ire a ritu a listic i ncant at i on t o es t abl i s h cons i der at i on of a l egal i s s ue, nordo w e demand thatthe-10-

d istric t co u rt re c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s to sh o w u s th a t itf u lfill e d its re sp o n sib ili ty t o be mi ndful of the fa ct or s thatC ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i der . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1222 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ), pet i t i on f orcer t . f

i l ed(Ju l. 7, 2 0 0 6 ) (N o . 0 6 -5 2 1 7 ). W h ile

“ w e w ill n o t d e m a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt re c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s” to su p p o rt its co n clus ion s, n eith er w il l w e “ p resu m e the d istri ct co u rtw eigh ed a p arty ’s ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s w her e the r ecor d pr ovi des no i ndi cat i on t hati tdi d s o and no cl earexpl anat i on of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d at 11 1 5 -16 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). [W ] her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a nonf r i vol ous ar gum entthatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a s ent ence , w e mustbe abl e t o di s cern fr om the r ecor d thatt he s ent enci ng j udge di d notr es ton the gui del i nes a lo n e , b u t co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e a c tu a lly con form s, i n the ci rcum st ances, t o the st atutoryfact ors. Id. at1117 ( quot at i on m arks , al t er at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ow ever , “[w ] hen the defendanthas notr ai s ed anys ubs t ant i al cont ent i ons conce rni ng nonG ui del i nes § 3553( a) fac t or s and the di s tr i ctcourti m pos es a s ent ence w i thi n the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , o u r p o st- B ookerp re c e d e n ts d o n o t re q u ire th e c o u rt to e x p lain on the r ecor d how the § 3553( a) fac t or s j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” Lopez - F l or es , 444 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 2 . W i th these pri ncipl es i n m i nd , w e no t e t he d i stri ctcou rti n thi s case-11-

expl i ci t l ycons i der ed the fa ct or s i n § 3553( a) and di d s o i n conj unct i on w i th the m i t i gati ng age an d h eal th cir cum st ances d escr i bed byM r. M art i nez-V i l l a. T hu s, the record prov i des a cl ear “i nd i cat i on ” i tcon si dered t he requ i si t e factor s, t o g e th e rwi th M r . M a r t i n e z - Vi l l a ’ s h e a l th a n d a g e a r g u me n t s , fo ra b e l o wG u id e lin e s -r a n g e s e n te n c e . See Sanc hez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d at 11 1 5 -16 . In addi t i on, w hen the di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a s ent ence atthe l ow end of the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , itw a s “ a f u n c tio n a l rejec tio n o f [ h is] a rg u m e n ts,” in c lu d in g h is adv anced age an d p oo r heal th, and therefore, i tcon st i tuted a “den i al of h i s r equ est fora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . ” Id . at1115. M or eover , as pr evi ous l ys t at ed, “[w ] hen the defendanthas notr ai s ed anys ubs t ant i al cont ent i ons conce rni ng nonG ui del i nes § 3553( a) fac t or s and the di s tr i ctcourti m pos es a s ent ence w i thi n the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , o u r p o st- B ookerp re c e d e n ts d o n o t re q u ire th e c o u rt to e x p lain on the r ecor d how the § 3553( a) fac t or s j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d at1222. Fi nal l y , beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ycons i der ed the r el evant G ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence d M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a w i thi n thatr ange, hi s s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e and he cl ear l yhas notr ebutt ed thi s pr es um pt i on by d e m o n stra tin g th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e se n ten c in g fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1055. I n otherw or ds , he has nots how n hi s age a n d h e a lth , w h e n v iew e d in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, a re su fficie n tly compel l i ng t o tr ans form hi s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e s ent ence i nt o an u n re a s o n a b le o n e .-12- I I I . C oncl us i on Forthes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r . M ar t i nez- V i l l a’ s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge