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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50997 C onfer enc e C 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. RAM ON PERA LTA- PE NA , 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 W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 1 5 8 8 - ALL B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R am on P eral t a- P en a ( P eral t a) app eal s t h e 46-m on t h pr ison sentence i m po s e d b y t he di s t r i c t c o ur t af t e r he pl e ad e d guil t y t o i l l e ga lr e e nt r y pur s uant to 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 . H e a rg u es th a t th e se n ten ce is grea ter th a n n ece ssa ryto m ee t th e se n ten ci n g g oa l s ou tl i n edi n 1 8 U . S . C . § 35 5 3 (a) a n d sp ecif i ca l l y a sse rts th a t, inli g h t of Ki m b rough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 58 ( 20 07 ) , t he presum pti on of

reason ableness d oes n ota pp l y t o h i s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50997

2 becau se U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2, t h e gu i del i n e provi si on app l i cabl e t o vi ol ati on s of § 1 326, i s f

l aw ed i n t hati ti s nots upport ed b y “em p i ri c aldat a and nat i onal e xp e r i e nc e ” a nd al l o w s pr e vi o us c o nvic t i o ns t o b e “ do ubl e c o unt e d” i n t he cal cul ati on of

gu i del i n es r an ges. P e r a lta fu r th e r a s s e r ts th a t t h e s e n te n c e fa ils t o a de qua t e l y ac c o untf o rhi s c i r c um s t an c e s a n dmo tiv e s a n dthatt he Se nt e nc i ng G u i del i n es produ ce u n w arran t ed s en t en ci n g di spari t i es because of t h e rand om ava i l abili t y of

“fast t rack” program s. W e h a ve co n sist en tly rej ected P era l ta’ s “em p i ri ca lda ta” arg u m en t, con cl u d i n g th a t Ki m broughdo e s no tq ue s ti o n the presum pti on of reasonab l en ess anddo e s no tr e quire d i s t r i c to ra ppe l l at e c o ur t s t o i nde pe nde nt l y ana l yz e t he e m p ir ic a l g r o u n d in gb e h in d e a c h in d iv id u a l g u id e lin e . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. D u a rte , 5 6 9 F .3 d5 2 8 , 5 3 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 6 -6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led (Ju n e 24, 200 9) ( N o. 08-1109 9) . Fu rt h erm ore, w e ha ve al so r ej ect ed the argu m en tt h at u si n g a pri or c o n v ic t i o n t o in c r e a s e th e o ffe n s e le v e l a n dinca lc u la tin gcr im in a l h is to r yis i m p erm i ssible “do u b l e cou n ti n g.” Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Cal ba t , 266 F. 3d 358, 364 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) . P eral t a h as n ot rebu t t ed th e presum pti on t h at th e di st ri ctcourt sentenced h i m t o a reasonab l e, properl y cal cul ated w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ce. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Maldo nado , 53 1 F . 3 d33 7 , 33 8 ( 5 thC i r.), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 43 5 F . 3 d55 1 , 55 4 -55 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). P eral t a’ s argum en tt h at th e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s d iscreti on i n not c o n s id e r in gth e cir c u m s ta n c e s a n dm o t iv e s s u r r o u n d in gh is o ffe n s e is e q u a lly u n ava i li n g . A r evi ew of t h e rec ord reveal s t h at th e di st ri ctcourtconsi dered Per alt a’ s a r gum e ntt hathi s c i r c um s t anc e s j us t i f i e d as e n t en ce b e l o w t he gui del i ne s r ang e b utul t i m at e l y i m pli c i t l y r ej e c t e d thi s a r gum e ntb y i m po s i ng t he m i ni m um g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e . M o r e o ve r , w he n r e vi e w i ng t he r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

a s e n t e n c e wi t h i n a p r o p e r l yc a l c u l a t e dg u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we w i l li n fer th at th e di st ri ctcou rt“consi dered al lthe fact ors f or a fai r s en t en ce s etN o. 08- 50997

3 forth inthe G u i d eli n es.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F . 3d511 , 519 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A s Peralt a c onc e d e s , thear gum entt hathi s gui deli nes r ange w as ex c es sive becau se itres u l t ed i n an un w arran t ed d i sp a rityb et w een defen da n t s t o w h om th e “fa s t t r a c k ” p r o g r a m is a v a ila b le a n dth o s e to w h o m it is n o ta v a i l a b l e is fo r e c lo s e d b ycu r r e n t c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 3 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (2 0 0 8 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th is c o u r tn e e d n o tc o n s id e rit fu r th e r . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.