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 CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 40195 C onfer enc e Cal 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. S E R G IO JO R G E D E L E O N - F U E N T E S , al so kn ow n as Jesu s H u m bert o D eL eon 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 SDC N o . 1 : 0 2 - CR- 5 4 1 - ALL B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H AM , D E N N IS , a n dP RA D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IAM: * Se r gi o J o r geD e Leo n- Fuen t e s a ppe a l sth e1 8 - m o n th t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e nt i m po s e d f

o l l o w i ng t he r e vo c at i o n o f hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e . H e c o nt e nds i n li ght o f Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ), t h a t th is c o u r t m u s t r e v ie w h is s e nt e nc e f

o rr e as o nab l e ne s s us i ng t he b if ur c at e d a ppr o ac h s e tforth i n G al lv. Un i t ed S t ate s, 12 8 S. C t . 586, 594 ( 2007) . D e L e o n -F u e n te s a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o c e d u r a llye r r e dw h e nit United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40195

2 fai l ed to respondt o t w o of t h e argu m en t s he rai sed i n m i t i gati onof hi s s en t en ce. T h i s c ou rtw il lrevi ew D e L e o n -F u en t es’ s argum en t , rai sed f or th e f i rst tim e o na p p e a l, fo r p la in e r r o r o n ly . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 505 F. 3d 389, 3 9 1 -9 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt. den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 9 5 9 (2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d S t at e sv. Jon es , 4 84F. 3d7 83 , 7 92 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 7) . To e s t ab l i s h pl ai n e r r o r , D e Leo nF u en t es m u stshow ( 1) t h at th ere w a s e rr or, ( 2) t h at th e err or w as cl ear or o b v io u s , a n d(3 ) th a t t h e e r r o ra ffe c te dh is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . O lano , 5 07 U . S. 7 25 , 7 31 - 37 ( 19 93 ) . I f t he s e fac t o r s are establ i s he d, t he de c i s i o n t o c o r r e c tt he f o r fe i t e d e r r o ri s w i t hi n thi s c o ur t ’ s s o und di s c r e t i o n, w h i ch w il lnot be exerc ise d u n l ess t h e err or s eri ou sly af fect s th e fai rness, in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio no f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . S ee i d. at735- 36. Th e r e c o r dr e f

l e c t s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o m p l i e dwit h 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 3 (e ) b yim p l i c i t lyco n s id e r in gth e re le v a n t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s in im p o s in gD e L e o n -F u e n te s ’ s re v o c a tio n s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. G on zalez , 250 F. 3d 923, 930 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) . M or eo ver , t o the e xt en t th a t § 3 5 53(c ) m ay r equire a di str i c tc our tt o s t at e i n open c our tit s r eas ons f ori m pos i ng a r e vo c at i o n s e nt e nc e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s t at e m e nt s w e r e l e ga l ly s uf f i c i e nt . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s refere nc e s t o D e Leo n- Fuen t e s ’ s r e c i divi s m a nd h i s r o l e i n t he revocat i onof

fen se provi dedsuf f i ci en texpl an ati onf or th e rej ect i on of D e L e o n -F u e n te s ’ s a r g u m e n ts in fa v o ro f am o r e le n ie n t r e v o c a tio n s e n te n c e . S ee R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 -6 9 (20 0 7 ). T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s s t at e m e nt s i n di c at e d ar e as o ne d b as i s f o re xe r c i s i ng i t s l e ga lde c i s i o n m ak i ng a u th o r ity . I

d. T h e 1 8 -m o n th te r m of i m p ri son m en t i m p ose dinD eL eo n -F u en tes’ s ca se fe ll w i t h i nt h e 24-m on t h st atutory m axim u m t erm of i m pri sonm en tt h at th e di st ri ct c o u r t c o u ldh a v e i m p o s e du p o nre v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e rv is e dre le a s e . S ee18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a )(3 ); § 3 5 8 3 (e )(3 ); 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), (b )(2 ). T h e s e n te n c e a ls o fe ll w i t hi n t he ra ngere c o m m e nde d byt he po l i c y s t at e m e nt s i n Chapt e rSe ve n o f t he S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s . S eeU . S. S. G . § § 7 B 1. 3(f ) , p. s . , 7 B1. 4( a) , p. s . DeLe o n-N o. 08- 40195

3 Fu ent es ’ s appell at e a r gum entfail s t o e st abli sh thathi s sen t enc e w as u n r e a s o n a b le o r p la in ly u n r e a s o n a b le . D e L e o n -F u e n te s c a n n o t es ta b lis h p la in e r r o r . Se eO lano , 507 U . S. at735- 36. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.