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- 20577 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. AGUST I N GON Z AL EZ - M ENDOZA , 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 S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C R - 191- 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: * A gu st i n G on zal ez- M en doza a p p e al s t h e 40-m on t h sentence i m posed f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y- ple a con vi ct i on of conspi racy t o t ran sportan d h arbor u n la w fu l a lie n s . S ee 8 U . S. C . § 1324 . H e c ont ends t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed by f i ndi ng hi s o f

fe ns e i nvo lve d 2 5– 99 unl awf ula l i e ns a nd i m po s i ng t he r e s ul t i ng s ix -le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t t o h is o ffe n s e le v e l. S ee U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .1 (b )(2 )(B ). A l th ou gh po st- B ooker , t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a r e a dv i s o r y o nl y, a nd a n u ltim a t e se n te n ce is re v iew e dforre a so n a b len e ss u n d e r a n a b u se -ofUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 25, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20577 Document: 00511120533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010N o. 09- 20577

2 di scr et i on st an da rd, t h e di st ri ctcourtm u stst i l lproperl y cal cul at eth e gu i del i n es e n te n c in gr a n g e fo ru s e in d 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) . In t h at respect , i t s app l i cat i on of t h e gu i del i n es i s r e vi e w e d de no vo ; its fa c tu a l fin d in g s , o n lyfo rcle a re r r o r . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G 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 S t at e s v. Vi l lega s , 404 F. 3d 355, 359 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) . Acc or di ngl y, w e r evi ew only f orc l ear errort h e chal l en gedfact u alf i n din g t h at G on zal ez w as res pon sibl e f or atl east 25 u n l aw f

u lal i en s. As the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i o n r e po r t(PSR ) no t e d, G o nz al e z s t at e d he w a s p a i d$3 0 0 f

or ea ch l oa dof a l i en s. H e d i dn ot rece ive the m on eyat f i rst; r at he r , i tw as de duc t e d f r o m t he $ 2, 20 0 he o w e d f o rhi s o w n s m uggl i ng fe e (he ent er ed il l egall y i n D ec em ber2008) . G on zal ez r ec eived $3, 000 be yond t hat r e pa ym e nt , a nd h e c o nc e de d heha d b e e n wor ki ng o f f hi s de btf

o rs e ve r alm o nt hs bef ore h e w as arres t ed. G on zal ez al so adm i t t ed that, begi n n i n g i n F ebru ary 2009 , o ne t o t wo l o a d s o f t wo t o t e n un l a wf ula l i e ns a r r iv e dwe e kl y. A d d itio n a lly , th e P S R in c lu d e din fo r m a tio n fr o m w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld de t e r m i ne t hata tl e as ts o m e o f t he l o ad s e xc e e de d t he m i ni m um o f t w o unl awf

ul ali e ns a nd thats o m e o f t he unl awf

ulal i e ns f

r o m t ho s e l o ad s ha d b e e n r e l e as e d; t hus, the 1 7 fou nd att he t i m e o f G onzal ez ’ s ar r es tdi d notc ons t i t ut e the t ot al n u m b e ro f a lie n s fo rw h ic h G o n z a le z w a s re s p o n s ib le . In s u m , in fo r m a tio n in t h e P S R sup ported t h e di st ri ctcou rt ’ s f i n di n g G on zal ez res pon sibl e f or atl east 25 u n l aw f

u lal i en s. B ecau se G on zal ez fai led to p rovi de rebu t t alevi den ce, t h e di st ri ctcourt w a s e n tit le dto re lyo n th e in fo r m a tio n in th e P S R . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ord , 558 F. 3d 371, 377 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (“ I n m aki ng i t s fac t ualf i ndi ngs f

ors ent enc i ng, ad is tr ic t c o u r t m a ya d o p t th e f in d in g s o f th e P S R w ith o u t a d d itio n a l in q u ir yif t ho s e fac t s ha ve a n e vi de nt i ar y ba s i s w i t h s uf f i c i e nt i ndi c i a o f

r e l i ab i l i t y andt he de fe nda ntdo e s no tpr e s e ntre but t alev i de nc e orot he r w i s e dem o ns t r at e t hatt he i nf or m at i on i s m at er i al l y unre l i abl e. ” ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. V alles , 484 F. 3d Case: 09-20577 Document: 00511120533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2010N o. 09- 20577

3 745, 759 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ) ) . I n t hatreg ar d, the di st r i c tcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat G o nz al e z w as r e s po ns ibl e f o r2 5 o rm o r e unl awf ula l i e ns w as p l au sibl e i n t he l i gh tof t h e rec ord as a w h o le an d, t h eref ore, w as n otcle a r lye r r o n e o u s . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. B et an court , 4 2 2 F .3d 2 4 0 , 2 4 5

– 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-20577 Document: 00511120533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2010