T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 26, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 4023 v. ( D . U t ah) I S AI AS CO RT E Z - VI L L ANUE VA, al s o know n as O r aci o C . V i l l anueva , al so kn ow n as O rosi o C ort ez, al so know n as L ui s C or ona Fl or ez,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 1 : 0 5 - CR - 4 9 - DAK)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , M c CO NNELL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. Isaias C o rt ez -V il lanu ev a p lead ed g u il tyin the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof U t ah t o one countof i l l egal r eentryunder8 U . S. C . § 1326. T he c o u rts e n te n c e d h im to 5 7 m o n th s in p ri s o n a n d tw o y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H e appe al s hi s s ent ence . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and a ffi rm.-2-

T he ca l cul at i on of M r . C or t ez- V i l l anueva ’ s s ent enci ng r ange unde rthe U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes (U S S G ) w as strai gh t forw ard. T he b ase o ffe n s e le v e l fo r u n la w f u lly e n te ri n g o r r e m a in in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s is 8 . See U S S G § 2 L 1 . 2 . M r. C o rt ez -V il lanu ev a re ce ived an incre ase o f 1 6 leve ls fo r a p re v io u s d e p o rt a tio n fo llo w in g a c o n v ic tio n fo r a v io le n t fe lo n y , s ee i d. § 2 L 1 . 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , a n d a d o w n w a r d a dj u s tm e n to f 3 fo ra c c e p t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i ty, s ee i d. § 3 E 1 .1 , fo r a to tal o ffe n se lev e l o f 2 1 . B a se d o n h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s, h is s t atus as a par ol ee, and hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on i n the pas ttw o y ear s , the p re s e n te n c e re p o rt(P S R ) c a lc u la te d h is c ri m in a l- h is to ry sc o re a s 9 , s ee i d. § 4 A 1 .1 , w h ic h e s ta b lis h e d a c ri m in a l- h is to ry c a te g o ry o f IV , s ee i d. § 5 A , re s u ltin g in a G u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f 5 7

– 7 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. See i d. I n r es pons e t o the PSR , M r . C ort ez- V i l l anuevafi l ed a pos i t i on s t at ement arg u ing that h e sh o u ld rec eive a d o w n w ard d ep arture b ec au se h is cri m inal-history ca tego ryo v errep rese n ted h is da n g ero u sn ess. H e a lso a rgu ed that u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , he s houl d r ece i ve a dow nw ar d var i ance b e c a u se h e w a s n o t d a n g e ro u s a n d b e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t’s fa st-tra c k p o licyis a rb itrar ya n d v io late s 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) b yfa v o rin g p e rso n s w h o h a p p e n to be co nv i ct ed in border st at es. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. C o rt ez -V il lanu ev a’s req u ests fo r a d o w n w ard departur e and va r i ance , rul i ng thatther e w as no r eas on t o i m pos e a s ent ence-3-

bel ow the G ui del i nes r ange a nd thatthe fa s t - tr ack pr ogr am di d notvi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on. T he courtnot ed thatM r . C ort ez- V i l l anuevahad bee n deport ed fr om the c ou ntryfi ve t i mes a nd ha d a pr i orc on vi c t i on fo rbu r gl a ry . ( The PSR r efl ect ed the corr ectoffe ns e, att empt ed bur gl ary . ) I ts ent ence d M r . C ort ezV i l l anuevat o 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow es ts ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. P o st- B ookerw e re v ie w a s e n te n c e fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A n ya lleg e d leg a l er ro rs in cal cul at i ng the G ui del i nes r ange a r e r evi ew ed de novo, and the under l y i ng fac tual fin d in g s a re re v ie w e d fo r c le a r e rr o r. See i d. a t 1 0 5 5 . If th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e is pr oper l ycal cul at ed, a s ent ence w i thi n the r ange i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, but th e p re su m p tio n c a n b e re b u tted b ye v id e n c e th a t th e se n ten c e u n re a so n a b lyfa ils t o t ake i nt o acc ount“otherfac t or s del i neat ed i n [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) . ” Id . at 1 0 5 4 . See als o R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 24 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 (2 0 0 7 ) (a p p e llate court s m ayappl ya pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o s ent ence s w i thi n the G u id e lin e s ra n g e ). I n hi s openi ng br i ef on appeal , M r . C ort ez- V i l l anuevacont ends thatthe d istric t co u rt im p o se d a n u n re a so n a b le s e n ten c e b e c a u se it (1 ) fa iled to g ra n t h im a dow nw ar d var i ance bas ed on the di s par i tycaus ed byfas t - tr ack pr ogr ams; ( 2) c o u n ted h is fiv e p rio r d e p o rta tio n s a g a in st h im ; an d (3 ) g a v e d isp ro p o rtio n a te-4-

w ei ghtt o hi s convi ct i on foratt empt ed bur gl ary , m i s cons trui ng i tas a convi ct i on for bu rgl ary . H e do es not chal l eng e the co urt ’s G uidel i nes cal culat i on s. W e ca n s um m ar i l ydi s pos e of M r . C ort ez- V i l l anueva ’ s cont ent i on thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a dow nw ar d var i ance becaus e the fa s t - tr ack pr ogr am vi ol at es § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) b yc re a tin g a se n ten c in g d isp a rityin fa v o r o f p e o p le w h o o ffe n d in bor ders t at es . W e r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n Un itedS ta tes v . Ma rtin ez-Tru jil lo , 4 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he s econd a r gum enti n M r . C ort ez- V i l l anueva ’ s openi ng br i ef i s thatthe d istric t co u rt e rre d b yc o n sid e rin g p rio r d e p o rta tio n s th a t h a d n o t re su lted in convi ct i ons fori l l egal r eentry . B utthe courtcan pr oper l ycons i derpr i or d e p o rta tio n s a s e v id e n c e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t ig n o re s th e law a n d is lik e lyto tryto r eent erthi s countryagai n. M r . C ort ez- V i l l anuevaconce ded thi s poi nti n the fol l ow i ng excha nge ats ent enci ng:

T he C ourt : A r e y ou s ay i ng I s houl dn’ tt ake i nt o acc ount a deport at i on thatw as n’ ta convi ct i on? [ D e fe n s e C o u n s e l] : W e ll, c e rt a in ly, I th in k it’ s re le v a n t. Y o u c e rta in lyc a n c o n sid e r th a t. R . V ol . I I at6. T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cons i der at i on of pr i ordeport at i ons w as not erro r. M r . C ort ez- V i l l anueva ’ s thi r d gr ound forchal l engi ng hi s s ent ence i s that the d istri ct co u rtg av e d ispro p o rt ion ate w eigh t t o h is attem p ted-b u rglary c o n v ic tio n b ym is c h a ra c te ri z in g it a s a b u rg la ry, w h ic h is a m o re s e ri o u s fe lo n y .-5-

T hi s ar gum entw as notpr es ent ed t o the court . W e ther efor e r evi ew i tonl yfor p la in e rr o r. Se e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2005) . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). H er e, ther e w as err or . T he di s tr i ctcourtcert ai nl ym i s s poke. A nd the err orw as p la in . B u t M r. C o rt e z -V illa n u e v a h a s n o t e s ta b lis h e d th e n e c e s s a ry p reju d ic e . T h e c o u rt re fe rre d o n lyo n c e to a b u rg lar ya n d th e re fe re n c e m a yh a v e b e e n sh o rtha nd fo rM r . Cor t e z - V i l l a nu e va ’ s c on vi c t i on fo ra tt e mpt e d b ur gl a ry ; the PSR r efe rr ed ac cur at el yt o the convi ct i on, as di d the pr os ecut i on and the defens e. T he c o u rt im p o se d th e lo w e st p o ss ib le G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e . W e h a v e n o re a so n to bel i eve thatthe court ’ s m i s char act er i zat i on of an a tt empt ed- bur gl aryconvi ct i on as a bur gl aryconvi ct i on pl ay ed anyr ol e i n i m pos i ng s ent ence . M r . C or t ezV i l l anuevai s ther efor e notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s gr ound. M r. C o rte z -V ill a n u e v a h a s ra ise d a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n ts s in c e fili n g h is o p e n in g b rie f

o n a p p e a l. In h is re p lyb rie f h e a rg u e s th a t fa st-tra c k se n ten c in g in otherj ur i s di ct i ons vi ol at es the C ons t i tut i onal guar ant ees of due pr oces s and equa l p r o t e c t i o n . Bu tb e c a u s e th e s e a r g u me n t s we r e n o tr a i s e d u n t i l th e r e p l yb r i e f, we w ill n o t c o n s id e r t h e m . See Stump v. G at es , 2 1 1 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e not e thatM r . C ort ez- V i l l anuevadoes notci t e t o anycas e hol di ng thatthe fa s t- tr a c k p ro g ra m v io la te s e ith e r d u e p ro c e s s o r e q u a l p ro te c tio n .-6-

A lso , in a lette r su b m itt e d u n d e r F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (j) a n d in a m o tio n to fi l e a s uppl ement al br i ef, he ar gues thatthe r ece ntdeci s i on t o adoptfas t - tr ack s e n t e n c i n g i n th e Di s tr i c to f Ut a h r e s u l t s i n a v i o l a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s u n d e rth e Ex P o s t F a c to a n d D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e s . See U .S . C o n st. a rt. I, § 9 , cl. 3 ; i d. a m e n d . V . H e b a se s h is a rg u m e n t o n th e o b se rv a tio n th a t b e c a u se d e fe n d a n ts se n ten c e d u n d e r th e fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m re c e iv e m o re len ien t se n ten c e s, h is s ent ence has become m or e s ever e bycompar i s on. W e denyhi s m ot i on t o fi l e a supp l em ental bri ef be cause t he argu m ent cl earl yl acks m eri t . H e ci t es Mi l l erv. Fl or i da , 482 U . S. 423, 430 ( 1987) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatthe i m pl ement at i on of th e fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m fa iled to g iv e fa ir n o tice o f a p e n a ltyc h a n g e . B u t n o tice is n e c e s s a ry o n ly fo r i n c re a s e s in p u n is h m e n t. Se e id . at429. B ecaus e adopt i on of the fa s t - tr ack pr ogr am di d noti ncr eas e the puni s hm entfora cr i m e, hi s cont ent i on u n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss a n d E x P o st F a c to C lau se s m u st fa il. M r . Co r t e z - Vi l l a n u e v a ’ s s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge