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 circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10681 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. M AR TI N H ER N AN D EZ- D O M I N G U 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 N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C R
- 15- 1 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * M artin H e r nand e z - D o m ingu ez ( H erna nde z ) a ppe al shi ss e nt e nc ef o ll o w ing h i s gui l t y pl ea to i l l egal reentry af t er deportat i on . H e a rgues that hi s s en t en ce w as substan t ively un reasona bl e becau se th e di st ri ctcourtfai l ed to recogni ze t h at he w as not si m i l arly sit u ated t o ot h er of fen ders i n cr i m i n alhi st ory cat egory V I. T h is c o u r t’s p r o c e s s o f r e v ie w in ga s e n te n c e is b ifu r c a te d . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u t i errez- Hernan d ez, 5 81 F . 3d2 51, 2 54 (5t h C i r. 200 9) . Fir st , t h i s c ou rtm u st United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April15, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10681 Document: 00511081135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2010N o. 09- 10681

2 e x a m in e w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e das ig n ific a n t p r o c e d u r a l e r r o rin d e te r m in in gt h e d e fe n d a n t’s s e n te n c e . I d. Th i s c our thas r ec ogni ze d pr oc edur al e r r o r s to in c lu d e (1 ) fa ilin gto ca lc u la te , o rim p r o p e r lyca lc u la tin g , th e a p p lic a b le sentenci n g ran ge u n der t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es; ( 2) t reat i n g t h e G u i del i n es as m andat ory; (3) fail i ng t o c ons i derthe 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s; ( 4) d eterm i n i n g a sen ten ce b a sedon cl ea rl y e rron eo u s fa cts; or (5) fai l i n g to a d e q u a te ly e x p la in th e ch o s e n s e n te n c e , o ra n yd e v ia tio n th e r e fr o m . I d. I f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i s pr o c e dural l y s o und, t hi s c o ur tc o ns i de r s t he s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e , c o n s id e r in gth e fa c to r s s e t fo r th in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id . As e n t e n c e w i th in ap r o p e r lyca lc u la te dg u id e lin e ra n g e is p r e s u m p tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . I d. F o rth e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l, H e r n a n d e z a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e s h o u ld notbe pr es um ed re as onabl e bec ausethe di st r i c tcour tcom m i t t ed a pro c edur al errori n sel ect i n g h i s s en t en ce. H e argu es th at th e courti m properl y em pl oyed t h e app el l ate s t an da rd of “reasona bl en ess. ” B ecau se H erna n dez fai l ed to rai se t hi s c l ai m i n the d i s t r i c tc o ur ti n s uc h am anne ra s t o a l e r tt he c o ur to f t he n a tu r e o f h is d is a g r e e m e n t, h is a r g u m e n t is re v ie w e dfo rp la in e r r o ro n ly . S ee Uni t e d S t at e sv. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 9 2 (2 0 0 9 ). T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s t atem e n ts, read i n context , i n di cat e t h at th e court u n derst ood that t h e G u i d e li n e s w ere advi sory onl y, bu tnev ert h el ess provi ded an app ropri ate s en t en ci n g ran ge i n H erna n dez’ s c ase. H erna n dez th u s has n ot s h o w n th a t t h e d is tr ic t co u r t co m m itt e d p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r , p la in o ro th e r w is e , in s e le c tin gh i s s e n t e n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 766 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (f i ndi ng t hatt he st at em ent t hatt he G ui deli nes pr ovi ded an “a p p r o p r ia te ” s e n te n c in gra n g e d i dn ot in d ica te tha t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c o r r e c tly a p p lie dap r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s ). A s t o t h e substantive reasona bl en e ss of t h e sentence, w e rej ect H erna n dez’ s at t em pt t o m i n i m i ze hi s c ri m i n alhi st ory. Sh ort ly af t er h e entered Case: 09-10681 Document: 00511081135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2010N o. 09- 10681

3 t he U ni t ed S t at e s il l e ga l ly i n 1 98 9, H e r nand e z b e ga n e nga gi ng i n s e r i o us o f fe ns e s , i nc l udi ng f

i r e ar m s a nd n ar c o t i cs o f fe ns e s . Dur i ng t hi s pe r i o d, H erna n dez i l l egally reentered th e U n i t ed S t ates on f ou r occasi on s, an d i n t h ree of t h ose occasi on s, h e reen t ered w i t h i n d ays of h i s rem oval. F ol l ow i n g h i s l atest i l l eg a lreen try, H ern a n d ez w a s con victed of d rivin g w h i l e i n tox i ca tedan dthe ft . In sum , H erna n dez h as fai l ed to overcom e t h e presum pti on of r e as o nab l e ne s s t hati s a f f o r de d the w i t hi n- G ui de l i ne s e nt e nc e . Acc o r di ngly, t he s e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-10681 Document: 00511081135 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/15/2010