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 th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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. 09- 40246 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. G U IL L E R M O G O M E Z L O P E Z , 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 S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R - 895- 1 B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * G u i l l erm o G om ez L op ez a p p ea l s th e sen ten ce im p ose df oll ow i n g h i s gu i l ty pl ea conv i ct i on of

one coun tof

il l egal reentry i n t o t h e U n i t ed S ta te s. G om ez L opez argu es th at hi s s en t en ce i s procedurally u nr eason able becau se th e di st ri ct court di d n otgive ad equ ate r eason s t o sup port i t s c h oi ce of sentence an d d i d n ot expli c i t ly addr es s hi s ar gum ent s i n favorof a l es se rs ent enc e. H e c ont ends t hat United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D October 19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40246

2 h i s sentence i s s u bstantivel y u n reasona bl e becau se iti s great er th an necessary to a c h ie v e th e g o a ls o f s e n te n c in g . G om ez L opez al so argues, f or th e p u rp ose of

preservi n g t h e i ssues f or possibl e Su prem e C ou rtrevi ew , t h at hi s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ce s h ou l d n ot bepr e s um e d r e as o nab l e be c aus e U . S. S. G . § 2L1. 2 i s notem pir i c ally ba s e d a nd is p e n o lo g ic a llyfla w e da n dth a t t h is c o u r t’s a b ilityt o re v ie w th e p r o p r ie tyo f h is s e nt e n c e i s h a m p e r e db yt h e l a c ko f r e a s o n s g iv e n f

o rt h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d. T h ese argum en t s are, as he concedes, un ava i l i n g u n der our pri or j u ri sprud en ce. S eeUn itedS ta tes v. D u a rte , 569 F. 3d 528, 529- 31 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer tden i ed , 2 0 0 9 U .S . L E X IS 6 3 6 9 (U .S . O c t. 5 , 2 0 0 9 ); see als o Uni t e d St at e sv . Mo ndrago nSa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 5 - 6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), c e r t . de ni e d, 20 0 9 U . S . L E X IS 610 9 (U . S . O ct . 5, 200 9) . G om ez L opez’ s r em ai n i n g argu m e n ts a re li kew i se u n a v a ilin g . Fol l ow i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 2 2 0 ( 200 5) , w e revi ew se n te n ce s fo r r e a so n a b len e s s i n li g h t of th e se n te n cin gfac to rs in§ 3 5 5 3 (a). Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F . 3d511 , 519 - 20 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) . Pu rsuan tt o G a ll v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 52 U . S. 3 8 ( 2007) , w e e nga gei n ab if ur c at e d r e vi e w o f

t he s e n te n c e im p o s e db yt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. D el ga d o- Mart i n ez, 564 F . 3d750 , 752 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . Firs t , w e consi der w h et h er th e di st ri ctcourt com m i tted a “si gn ifica n t pro ced u ra lerro r. ” I d. a t 7 5 2- 53. I f

t h ere i s no such error , w e t h en revi ew t h e su b sta n tive reasona bl en ess of t h e sentence i m posed fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d. a t 7 5 1 -5 3 . G om ez L opez’ s argum en tconcerni n g t h e procedu ralun reasona bl en ess of h i s s e n t en ce w as not presented t o t h e di st ri ctcourtan d thu s i s r evi ew ed f or p la in e r r o ro n ly . S ee Mo n d rago n -S a n tiago , 5 6 4 F .3 da t 3 6 1 . H e h a s n o t m e t t h is stan d a rdw i thresp e c t to h is cl a i m tha t th e d i stri ct cou rt ga ve i n a d eq u a te r e a s o n s to s u p p o r t it s ch o ic e o f s e n te n c e . S e eid . a t 3 6 4- 65. H e li kew i sehas fail e d t o re butt he pr e s um pt i o n o f r e as o nab l e ne s s t hata t t ac he s t o hi s w i t hi n-N o. 09- 40246

3 g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 435 F . 3d551 , 554 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). 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 A F F IR M E D .