P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50001 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. A R T U R O C A R D O Z A -P U E N T E , 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- 2 7 2 7
- ALL B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Artur oCar do z a- P u en t e ( C ardoza ) pl ead ed gu i l t y t o ill e ga lly r e e nt e r i ng the U n i t ed S t ates af

t e r d e p o rtati on . H e w as sentenced to an 80-m on t h t erm of i m pri sonm en t , w i t h i n t hea dvi s o ry r ang epr o vi de d b y theSe n t en ci n g G u i del i n es. C ardoza argu es t h at hi s s en t en ce i s un reasona b le becau se t h e G u i del i n es o ve r s t at e d t he seri ous ne s s o f hi s o f fe ns e a nd fail e d t o t ak e i nt o a c c o untt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50001

2 m i t i ga t i ng nat ur e o f

hi s cult ur alas s i m i l at i o n and hi s m o t ive f o rr e t ur ni ng t o t he U n i t ed S t ates. W e revi e w t h e substantive reasona bl en ess of a sentence f

or an ab u se of d is c r e tio n . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S . C t . 586 , 597 ( 200 7) . C ardoza presented hi s c onc er ns atl engt h i n hi s w r i t t en o b j ec t i ons and athi s se nt enc i ng hear i ng, ar gui ng t hatc e r t ai n fac t s m i t i ga t e d hi s gui l ta nd thatt he 1 6- l e ve le nhan c e m e nt r e s ul t e d i n aund ul y har s h s e nt e nc i ng r ang e unde r § 3 55 3( a) . The G o ve r nm e nt ar gue d t hatt he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s s upp o r t ed a sentenc e w i t hi n t he g ui de l i ne ra n g e , e sp e cia llyg ive n C a rd o z a ’ s le n g th ycr im in a l h isto rya n dre ce n t th e ft offen se. T h e d i stri ct cou rt li sten ed to t h ese arg u m en ts a n d fo u n d tha t a se nt enc e w i t hi n t he gui del i ne r ange w as s uf fi c i entbutnotgr eat ert han n e ce ss a ryto a ch iev e th e g o a ls o f § 3 5 5 3 (a). B ecau se iti s w i t h i n t h e gu i del in es r an ge, C ardoza ’ s s en t en ce i s entit l ed to ap r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s , see Uni t e d St at e s v. Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 328 ( 2008) , and C ar doz a has s h o w n n o g o o dre a s o n fo ru s to d is tu rb it. S ee G a ll , 12 8 S. Ct . at 597 ( st at i ng th a t “th e fact tha t t h e a p p ell a te cou rt m i gh t reas on a b l y [con cl u d e] t h a t a di f ferent sentence [i s] ap propri ate i s i n suff i ci en t t o j u st i f

y reversal of t h e di st ri ct co u rt”). C ardoza a ckn ow l edg es that t w o add i t i on alargu m en t s t h at he rai ses are fo r e c lo s e d . H e a r g u e s t h a t th e a p p e lla te p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s s h o u ld no ta pply be c aus e U . S. S. G . § 2L1. 2 l ac ke d an em pir i c alfo unda t i o n, a nd thatt he gui de l i ne s r ang e r e f

l ect ed a n unwar r ant e d d i s pa r i t y be t w e e n de fe nda nt s w ho can pa rt i ci pa t e i n a fast- t rack program an d defen da n t s w h o cann ot . A s C ardoza c o n c e d e s , w e h a v e p r e v io u s ly r eje c te d s u c h cla im s . Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndr ago nSa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or cer t . f i led(June 24, 2009) (N o . 0 8 -1 1 0 9 9 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . G o m ez - He rre ra , 5 2 3 F .3d 5 5 4 , 5 6 3 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (20 0 8 ). AF F I RMED.