Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40246

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUILLERMO GOMEZ LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-895-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guillermo Gomez Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty

plea conviction of one count of illegal reentry into the United States. Gomez

Lopez argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district

court did not give adequate reasons to support its choice of sentence and did not

explicitly address his arguments in favor of a lesser sentence. He contends that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 19, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40246

2

his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary

to achieve the goals of sentencing. 

Gomez Lopez also argues, for the purpose of preserving the issues for

possible Supreme Court review, that his within-guidelines sentence should not

be presumed reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based and

is penologically flawed and that this court’s ability to review the propriety of his

sentence is hampered by the lack of reasons given for the sentence imposed.

These arguments are, as he concedes, unavailing under our prior jurisprudence.

See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009), cert denied,

2009 U.S. LEXIS 6369 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009); see also United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365-67 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 2009 U.S. LEXIS

6109 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009). Gomez Lopez’s remaining arguments are likewise

unavailing. 

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review

sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), we engage in a bifurcated review of the

sentence imposed by the district court. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564

F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we consider whether the district court

committed a “significant procedural error.” Id. at 752-53. If there is no such

error, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed

for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 751-53. 

Gomez Lopez’s argument concerning the procedural unreasonableness of

his sentence was not presented to the district court and thus is reviewed for

plain error only. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. He has not met this

standard with respect to his claim that the district court gave inadequate

reasons to support its choice of sentence. See id. at 364-65. He likewise has

failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-
No. 09-40246

3

guidelines sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.

2006). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.