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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51184 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. ve r s us A B R A H A M D E L G A D O , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

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 N o. 3: 08- C R
- 460- 7

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ab r a h a m D e lg a d o a p p e a ls th e 2 8 8 -m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is gui l t y pl ea c onvi c t i on of c ons pi r ac y t o po ss es s f ive ki l ogr am s orm or e o f a m i xUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51184

2 t u re orsubstance con ta in in ga detec t able am ou n tof coc ai n e. D el gad o argu es t h at t h e sentence i s procedurally u n reasona bl e becau se t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot givea de qua t e r e as o ns fo rrej e c t i ng hi s ar gum e nt s i n fav o ro f ab e l o w - gui de l i ne sentence an d becau se itreli ed t oo h eavily on t h e t ri al t est i m on y given by a defe n d a n t in a r e la te d c a s e . D e lg a d o co n te n d s th a t t h e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e as o nab l e b e c aus e i tis g reat e rt han ne c e s s ar y t o a c hi e vet he g o al s o f s e nte n c in g . Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 2 20 (2005), w e revi ew sentence s fo rr e a s o n a b le n e s s in lig h t o f th e fa c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 40 2 F. 3d 51 1, 51 9- 20 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 05 ) . Pur s uant t o G a ll v . Un i t ed S t ate s , 552 U . S . 38 (2 0 0 7 ), w e eng age i n a bif u rcat ed revi ew of

t h e sentence. Un i t ed S t ate s v. D el

ga d o- Mart i n ez , 5 6 4 F . 3 d7 5 0 , 7 5 2 ( 5 t h Cir . 2 0 0 9 ) . F i r s t , we c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e da“ s ig n ific a n t p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r .” Id . a t7 52 - 53 . I f

t he r e i s no suc h er r o r , w e t he n r e vi e w t he s ubs t ant iver e as o na b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Id . a t 7 5 1 -5 3 . D el gad o’ s argum e ntc o nc e r ni ng pr o c e du ralun reasona bl en ess w as not pres e n t e dto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n dth u s is re v ie w e dfo rp la in e r r o ro n ly . Un i t ed St at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 30 S. C t. 1 9 2 (2 0 0 9 ). F ir s t, D e lg a d o h a s n o tm e tt h i s s ta n d a r dw ith re s p e c t t o h is c la im th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g a v e in a d e q u a te r e a s o n s . S e eid . a t 3 6 4 -6 5 ; R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 551 U . S. 338, 358- 59 ( 2007) . Sec ond, D el gado’ s sugge st i on t hat

“ se nt enc i ng evi denc e, ” suc h as t he t r i al t es t i m ony i n a r el at ed c as e, m ustbe s ubj e c t e d t o “t ho r o ugha dv e r s ar i alt e s t i ng”m i s c o ns t r ue s t he a nalys i s i n R ita , 551 U . S. a t3 51 ( e xp l ai ni ng t hat“t he s e nt e nc i ng c o ur ts ubj e c t s t he de fe nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e t o t he t ho r o ugha dv e r s ar i alt e s t i ng c o nt em pl ated byfe de r als e nt e nc i ng p r o c e d u r e ”). D e lg a d o a ls o h a s fa ile da d e q u a te lyt o r a is e o rd e v e lo p inh is a p p e ll a t e b r i e f

h i s a r g u me n tt h a th e w a s d e n i e dt h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n ta n dc r o s s - e x a min e th e d e fe n d a n t in th e re la te dca s e , a n d , th u s , th e is s u e is w a iv e d . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. T

h am es , 214 F . 3d608 , 611 n. 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0) . I n a ny e ve nt , t he i s s ueN o. 08- 51184

3 is fo r e c lo s e db yc ir c u it p r e c e d e n t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Nava rro , 169 F. 3d 228, 236 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (“[ T ]h e r e is n o C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e rig h t a t s e n te n c in g .”). F in a l l y, D elga d o h a s fa i l edto reb u t th e p resu m p ti on of rea son a b l en ess tha t atta c h e s t o h is w ith in -g u id e lin e s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 435 F. 3d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.