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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50791 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. C A R LO S H E R R E R A

- M I R A N D A , al soknow n as C ar l os G abr i elH er r er a 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 t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8
- CR- 9 2 7
- ALL
B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * C arl os H errer a- M iran da(H errer a) a pp eal s th e 71-m on thsentence i m posed fo llo w in gh is g u iltyp le aco n v ic t i o n fo rille g a l re e n tr yfo llo w in gd e p o r ta tio n in vi ol ati on of

8 U
. S
. C
. § 1326
. H errer a contend s t h at hi s s en t en ce w as greater t h a n n e c e s s a r yt o a c c o m p l i s h t h e g o a l s o f se nt e n c i n gl i s t e di n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) ( 2 ) bec ause hi s m ot ive f orc om m i t t i ng t he o f fens e a nd hi s per so nal h is to r ya n dch a r a c te r is tic s m a d e h is “s itu a tio n u n iq u e , d e s p ite h is re g r e tt a b le cri m i n alhi st ory. ” H errer a concedes th a tt h i s c ou rtordi n ari l y ap pl i es a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50791

2 p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s to w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Alo n zo , 4 3 5 F .3 d5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 127 S
. C t . 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 -6 8 (20 0 7 ). H erre ra arg u es for th e first ti m e on ap p ea l, h o we v e r , t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n b e c a us e t he gui del i ne f

ori l l ega lre ent r y, U
. S. S. G
. § 2L1. 2, i s notem pi r i c al l y s upport ed as
r equi r ed by Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 5 8 , 5 7 4 -7 5 (2 0 0 7 ). In revi ew i n g a sentence, w e “ consi der t h e substantive rea so n a b l en ess of th e se n ten ce im p o s e d u n d er a n ab u se-of- d i scre ti on stan d a rd
. ” G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 28 S. Ct
. 5 86, 5 97 ( 2007)
. H e r r e r a di d no tc hall e nge§ 2 L1. 2 i n t he di st r i c tc our ton t he bas i s t hatt he gui del i ne w as nots upport ed byem pi r i c al d a ta . W e th e r e fo r e re v ie w t h is a r g u m e n t fo rp la in e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 9 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 328 (2 0 0 8 ). The quest i on i n Ki m brough w as w he t he r“ a s e nt e nc e . . . o ut s i de t he gu i d eli n es ra n ge i s p er se u n rea son a b l e w h en it i s b a sed o n a d i sa gr ee m en t w i th t he s ent enc i ng di spar i t y f orc r ac k and pow derc ocain e offen se s. ” 128 S. C t . at 5 6 4 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). Ki m bro ugh does n ot ad dress t h e app l i cabi l i t y o f the presu m pti on of reasonab l en ess. M oreover, Campo s - Maldo nado su p p orts th e con ti n u ed a p p l i ca b i l i ty of t h e a p p ell a te presum pti on t o § 2L 1. 2 sentences. See Campo s - Maldo nado , 531 F. 3d at338- 39. The di s t r i c tc o ur tcons i de r e d H e r r e r a’ s s e nt e nc i ng ar gum e nt s a nd i m po s e d a se nt enc e a tt he t op o f t he advi so r y gui del i nes r ange ba se d on hi s ext en sive cri m i n alhi st ory. H errer a’ s s en t en ce i s entit l ed to a rebu t t able presum pti on of
r e a s o n a b le n e s s . S ee C ampo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 da t 3 3 8 ; Uni t e d S t at e s v. G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir .), cert. den i ed , 129 S. C t . 624 ( 2008)
. Bec aus e H erre r a has no ts ho w n t hathi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e as o nab l e , he h a s n o ts h o w n e r r o r , p la in o ro th e r w is e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is AF F I RMED.