NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0542n.06 No. 11-5602 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. LUI S MENDEZ -PEREZ , Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : MARTI

N and DAUGH TREY, Circuit J udg es; MAL ONEY, Chief District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Luis Mendez-Pere z, a fede ral prisoner repr esente d by counsel, appea ls a distric t court judgme nt following his g uilty plea to illega l ree ntry into the United States as a previously

deporte d alien subseque nt to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mendez-Pere z’s prese ntence repor t calc ulated his advisory sentenc i n g guidelines rang e to be fiftee n to twenty -one months of imprisonment. Howeve r, the repor t noted that there wer e fac tors that would justify a varia

nce from this rang e. At the sentenc ing hearing, the district court noted that Mendez-Pere z had illega lly ree n t er ed t h is country twelve times and had sever al drunk- driving convictions, indicating that he posed a dang er to the public. The court also found that Mendez-Pere z
was dang erous beca

use of his previous involvement in alien smugg ling. The district court decide d to vary upwar d from the top of the g uidel i n es ra n ge one month for eac h of the twelve times that Mendez-Pere z had illega lly ree ntere d the country
. There fore , the court imposed a sentenc e of thirty

The Honora

ble Paul L

. Maloney , Chief United States District J udg e for the Western District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation.No. 11-5602 - 2 - three months of imprisonment. The district court inquired whether there wer e any objections, and Mendez-Pere z’s attorney

stated that there wer e none. On appea l, with a new attorney , Mendez-Pere z objects to the upwar d varia nce. He notes that he had alre ady rec eived a four- level enhanc ement to his offe nse level due to his previous deportation. Be cause Mendez-Pere z failed to raise his objection afte r being invited to do so by the district court, his se ntence is reviewe d for plain e rror . See U nited States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 385-86 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

. To the extent that he argues his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable,

we revie w the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brooks , 628 F.3d 791, 797 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3077 (2011). No plain er ror or abuse of discretion ar e appar ent in this case. Although Mendez-Pere z rec eived an enhanc ement to his offe nse level for a p re v i o us deportation, the district court proper ly considere d the fac t that Mendez-Pere z had actua lly illega lly

ree ntere d the United States twelve times. The district c ourt also proper ly considere d the dang er to the public cause d by Mendez-Pere z’s numerous convictions for driving under the influence and for his involvement in alien sm ug g ling. We have pr eviously upheld upwar d varia

nces in c ases based

on the number of prior remova ls from this country and the risk to the public demonstrated by prior convictions, including drunk-dr iving off en s es . United States v. Trist an-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 634-35 (6th Cir. 2010). Finally , Mendez-Pere z has not de monstrated that a differ ent sentenc e was require d in his case. See U nited States v. Brown , 579 F.3d 672, 687 ( 6th Cir. 2009). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.