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. 09- 50832 Su m m ar yC al 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. EL IAZA R JU AR EZ , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 09- C R
- 220- 1 B ef ore JO L LY , B A R K S D A L E , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S u b seq u en t t o h i s gu i l ty-plea con victi on of on e cou n t of il l eg a lre en try into t he U ni t e d St at e s fo l l o w i ng a pr i o rde po r t at i o n, El i az arJ uar e z w as s e nt e nc e d, in tera lia , to 4 1 m o n th s ’im p r is o n m e n t. Ju arez chal l en ges onl y t h e substantive reasona bl en ess o f h i s s en t en ce, assert i n g i tw as un du l y h arsh becau se t h e courtgave h i s pri or c on vi ct i on s t oo m u ch w ei gh tw h en consi deri n g t h e 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) sentenci n g fact ors. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 1, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50832 Document: 00511127900 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 09- 50832

2 A rgua bl y, Ju arez fai l ed to preserve t h i s i ssue i n d ist ri ctcourt . W e need n o t d e cid e th a t q u e stio n , h o w e v e r , b e ca u se h is cla im fails u n d e r th e a b u se -ofdi s c r e t i o n s t and ar d o f r e vi e w a ppli e d t o pr o pe r l y pr e s e rve d c hall e nge s t o t he r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f as e n te n c e , a s d is c u s s e db e lo w . A l th o u g h po st- B ooker ( 2005) , t he G ui del i nes ar e a dvi so r y o nl y, and an u l t i m ate s en t en ce i s revi ew ed f or r eason ableness un der an abu se- of

- di scr et i on s t and ar d, thedi s t ric tc o urtm us ts tillproperl y cal cul ate th e gu i del i n e- sentenci ng r a n g e fo ru s e ind e c id in go n th e s e n te n c e to im p o s e . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 200 7) . I n t h at r espect , i t s app l i cat i on of t h e G u i del i n es i s r evi ew ed de no vo ; it s fa c tu a l f

in d in g s , o n lyfo rc le a re r r o r . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i snerosG u t i errez , 5 1 7 F .3 d7 5 1 , 7 6 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Vi l lega s , 404 F. 3d 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s n o te d , J u a r e z d o e s n o t c la im p r o c e d u r a l e r r o rin c a lc u la tin gh is s e n te n c in gra n g e . Ap r o p e r lyca lc u la te dw ith in -g u i d e l i n e s s e n te n c e , a s inth is in s ta n c e , is p r e s u m e dre a s o n a b le . Uni t e d St at e s v . Ar m s t ro ng , 550 F . 3d382 , 405 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 5 4 (2 0 0 9 ); s e eals o Uni t e d St at e s v . Alon zo , 435 F. 3d5 51 , 5 54 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) . To r e butt hat pr e s um pt i o n, Jua r e z m us ts ho w t he di st ri ctcourt fail ed to accoun tf or a s en t en ci n g fact or th at s h ou l d h ave been accorded sub st an t i alw ei gh t , gave su bstanti alw ei gh tto a n “i rrel evan tor i m pr o pe rfac t o r” , o rm ad e “ a c l e are r r o ro f j udg m e nti n b al anc i ng s e nt e nc i ng fa c to r s ”. Uni t e d S t at e s v. Coo ks , 5 8 9 F .3 d1 7 3 , 1 8 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . den i ed , N o . 0 9 -9 2 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 W L 6 3 7 9 4 3 (22 M a r. 2 0 1 0 ). Ju arez h as n ot m et t h i s st an da rd. H i s cl ai m s concerni n g th e d istr i ct c o ur t ’ s b a l a n c i n go f

t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c t o r s a m o u n tt o ad i s a g r e e m e n twi t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s w e i ghi ng o f t he s e fac t o r s a nd t he ap pr o pr i at e ne s s o f hi s w i t hi ngu i del i n es s en t en ce. Th is di sagreem en tdoes n ots u ffic e to s h o w e r r o rin c o n n e c tio n w ith h is s e n te n c e . Se ei d. ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F. 3d 55 4, 5 65 - 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) (upho l di ng pr e s um pt i o n of r e as o nab l e ne s s o f

wi t hi ngui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e w he r e a ppe l l antcl ai m e d Gui de l i ne s o ve r s t at e d the Case: 09-50832 Document: 00511127900 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 09- 50832

3 se r i ou sne ss of

hi s of fens e) . H e has nots how n t hathi s se nt enc e w as sub st an t ivel y u n reasona bl e, nor ha s he rebu t t ed the presum ption of r e a s o n a b le n e s s th a t a tt a c h e s to h is w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S ee Arm s t ro ng , 550 F. 3d at404. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50832 Document: 00511127900 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2010