Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set fo rth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 8 U.S.C. § 1 326 . 1 5 5 2 U .S . 8 5( 2 0 0 7). 2 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51057 S u m m ary C al en da r 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. V IC T O R VA L E N Z U E L A -G U E R R E R O , a ls o k n o w n a s V ic to r V a le n z u e la D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 1 4 4 4 - ALL B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * V ic to r V a le n z u e la -G u e r r e r o a p p e a ls th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d fo llo w in gh is gu i l t y pl ea conv i ct i on f or i l l egal reentry. V al en zuela argu es t h at hi s gui del i n es 1 sentence shou l d n ot be presum ed reason able becau se U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2 i s f l aw ed u n der Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s becau se i t i s not em pi ri cal l y- based . H e al so 2 United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 29, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10819

5 6 4F .3 d 3 5 7( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 3 Id. at36 6. 4 U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2, comment 6 (“A convicti on taken into acco unt und er subsec tion(b)(1 ) 5 is not e xcluded from co nside ration of whethe r that convicti on receive s cri minal historypoints purs u a nt toC h a pt erFour, P artA ( C ri mi n al Hi st ory). ”) . U . S. v. Hawkins , 6 9F .3 d 1 1 , 1 3

– 1 5( 5 thC ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (h ol din gth at u n de r U. S. S. G. § 6 2K2.1 “theGui delines permit consi derationof [the defen dant]’s fel onyc o nvictio ninc alcul atin g b othhiso ff

en sel evela n d hisc ri mi n al his to ry .”). 2 a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is g r e a te r th a n n e c e s s a r y to m e e t t h e s e n te n c in gg o a ls of 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) becau se t h e G u id e li n es acc ou n t f or hi s pri or c on vi ct i on both to i n crease h i s of fen se l evel an d to cal cul ate hi s c ri m i n al hi st ory sc ore. W e ha ve r ej e c t e d Val e nz ue l a’ s f i r s t a r gum e nt i n Unit ed S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , h oldin g th a t Ki m br ough d oe s n ot ad d ress the ap p ell a te 3 presum pti on of

reasonab l en es s , i ns t e adr e m i ndi ng t hati ti s w i t h i n t h e di scr et i on of t h e di st ri ctcourt “ t o consi der t h e pol i cy deci si on s behind the G u i de li n e s, i ncl udi ng t he pr es enc e o r abs enc e o f em pi r i c aldat a, as par t of t hei r § 3553(a) ana l ys i s . ” As i n Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , w e decl i n e t o second guess t h e di st ri ct

4 c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n s i m pl y be c aus e a G ui de l i ne m ayno t b e e m pi r i c al l y- ba s e d. V al en zuela’ s s econd argu m en tt h a t th e G u id e li n e s d o u bl e coun t ed h i s pri or c onvi c t i on i s al so u navai l i ng. T he G ui del i nes do not pr ohi bi t doubl e c ount i ng. 5 A n d w e ha ve ap proved of dou bl e coun t i n g u n der si m i l ar ci rcum st an ces. 6 A c c o r d in g ly , V a le n z u e la h a s n o t s h o w n th a t t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s ly ca l cu l a ted the gu i d eli n e ra n ge of i m p ri son m en t. AF F I RMED.