T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 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, v. RU BE N LO PEZ- CA M A S, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2224 ( D . N . M) ( D. C. No . CR- 0 4 - 2 1 0 5 - J C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

R uben Lopez- C amas pl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng depor t at i on aft erconvi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l ony . A ft er cons i der i ng t he pr operadvi s or yr ange unde rt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s , b u tfa i l i n g t o d i s c u s s a n yo f t h e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) , t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d L opez- C amas t o a t erm of fi fty - s evenI n acc or dance w i t h t he G ui del i nes , L opez- C amas r ece i ved one c r i m i nal 1 h isto ryp o in t fo r a D U I o ffe n se c o m m itt e d in F lo rid a in 2 0 0 0 , thr e e p o in ts fo r h is 2003 chi l d m ol es t at i on offe ns e, t w o poi nt s beca us e hi s i l l egal r eentryw as (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, a s e n te n c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s ra n g e . L opez- C amas a ppeal s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng i ti s unr eas onabl e. B eca us e LopezC amas fa i l ed t o obj ectt o t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s m ethod of s ent enci ng bel ow , and beca us e fa i l ur e t o r efe rt o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s i n a s ent enci ng or derdoes not , on i t s o wn , c o n s t i tu t e p l a i n e r r o r , we e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 and A F F I R M the d istri ct co u rt ’s sen tenc ing o rde r. O n O ct ober7, 2004, B or derPatr ol agent s arr es t ed Lopez- C amas i n N ew M exi co. L opez- C amas a dm i t t ed he w as a ci t i zen of M exi co and w as i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y . I nves t i gat i on r evea l ed Lopez- C amas ha d been c onvi ct ed of s econd- degr ee c hi l d m ol es t at i on i n the St at e of W as hi ngt on i n 2003, forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d t o ei ght een mont hs ’ cus t odyand deport ed t o M exi co on Sept ember 27, 2004. L o p e z -C a m a s w a s c h a rg e d w ith a n d p lea d e d g u iltyto ill e g a l re e n tryin to t he U ni t ed St at es fol l ow i ng depor t at i on aft erconvi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l ony i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326. A ppl y i ng r el evants ect i ons of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U SSG ” or“G ui del i nes ”) , t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) s t at ed thatL opez- C amas’ adj us t ed offens e l evel w as t w enty - one and, bas ed on hi s s even c r i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s , hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 comm i t t ed w hi l e he r emai ned on comm uni tys upervi s i on, and an a ddi t i onal poi nt beca us e hi s i l l egal r eentr yoccurr ed l es s than tw o y ear s aft erhi s r el eas e fr om im p riso n m e n t. 3 I V . G i v e n t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n , t h e G u i d e l i n e s s p e c i fi e d a s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e o f fi f t yse v e n to se v e n ty -o n e m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. P rio r to h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , L o p e z -C a m a s s u b m itt e d to th e c o u rt a Sent enci ng M emora ndum and M ot i on forD ow nw ar d A dj us t m enti n C r i m i nal H ist o ryC ateg o ry . In th e m em o ran d u m , h e a sserted that a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof I V over s t at ed the s er i ous nes s of hi s pr i oroffe ns es and r eques t ed that t he courtcal cul at e hi s s ent ence us i ng a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I . H e made t he s ame ar gum entdur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. T he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed Lopez- C amas’ ar gum ent , butthen s t at ed the fol l ow i ng: T he C our thas r evi ew ed the pr es ent ence r eportfac tual fi ndi ngs and has cons i der ed the s ent enci ng gui del i ne appl i cat i ons . I acc epty our p le a o f g u ilty. T he offens e l evel i s 21, and the cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryi s I V . T he gu i deli ne im pri sonm ent r ang e i s 57 to 71 m on ths. T he C our tnot es t hatt he defendantr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es aft er havi ng been de por t ed fol l ow i ng a convi ct i on fora cr i m e of vi ol ence , chi l d m ol es t at i on. A s to th e in d ictm e n t . . . the d e fe n d a n t, R u b e n L o p e z -C a m a s, is comm i t t ed t o t he cus t odyof the B ur eau of Pr i s ons fora t erm of 57 m o n th s .4

N ot abl y , t he or derdi d nots t at e thatthe di s tr i ctcour thad cons i der ed al l – orany – of the s ent enci ng fac t or s under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i n det erm i ni ng the pr oper sent ence. Lo pez-C am as appe al s. U n d er U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, ap p ell ate c o u rt s rev iew d istri ct co u rt s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s fo r “ re a s o n a b le n e s s .” 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 2 (2 0 0 5 ). “R eas onabl enes s has bot h pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s . ” U ni t ed St at es v . C a g e , 4 5 1 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 9 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). L o p e z -C a m a s a rg u e s th a t h is s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o cons i der t he § 3553( a) fac t or s befor e i m pos i ng hi s s ent ence . W e have r ece nt l ycons i der ed s ever al chal l enges t o vi r tual l yi dent i cal sen tenc ing o rde rs. O n ap p ea l, the re so luti o n o f w h ethe r th o se se n tenc ing o rde rs w e re re a s o n a b le h a s tu rn e d o n th e is s u e o f w h a t s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w w e a p p lie d . T he s t andar d of r evi ew depende d on w hethert he defendantobj ect ed t o the m e th o d b yw h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d th e s e n te n c e . In U n it ed S tat es v . S an ch ez -Jua rez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), w e r ever s ed a s ent enci ng or dert hatfai l ed t o expl ai n w hyt he courtw as i m pos i ng t he s ent ence . W e r evi ew ed the s ent ence s i m pl yforr eas onabl enes s beca us e the defe ndanthad obj ect ed t o t he met hod byw hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtcal cul at ed the se n ten c e . Id . T h e se n ten c e w a s u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it d id n o t p ro v id e a b a sis foran appe l l at e courtt o det erm i ne i t s r eas onabl enes s : “I n part i cul ar , w her e a d e fe n d a n t h a s ra ise d a n o n f riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t th a t th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs w a rra n t a5

below -G uidel i nes sent ence a nd has exp res sl yrequest ed such a sent ence, w e m ust be abl e t o di s cern fr om t he r ecor d thatthe s ent enci ng j udge di d notr es ton the g u id e lin e s a lo n e , b u t co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e a c tu a lly c o n fo rm s , in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , to th e s ta tu to ry fa c to rs .” Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). In U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez -F lores, 44 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), how ever , t he defendanthad notobj ect ed t o a s ent enci ng or derw hi ch di d notr efe r t o any§ 3553( a) fac t or s . T hus , w e appl i ed pl ai n err orr evi ew . T he r eas on for t hi s i s t hatpar t i es s houl d i nform the di s tr i ctcour tabouta fa i l ur e i n the met hod by w h ich it i m p o sed the s en tenc e so itca n rev ise i ts ord er. “A t i m el yobj ect i on t o t he met hod can a l er tthe di s tr i ctcour tand oppos i ng couns el , s o t hata pot ent i al err orcan be corr ect ed, obvi at i ng anyneed foran appe al . H er e, forexampl e, an obj ect i on t hatthe s ent enci ng cour thad notadequa t el yexpl ai ned the s ent ence underthe fa ctors se t fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) w o u ld h av e e n ab led th e c o u rt e ith e r to c o rre c t a fa ilu re to c o n sid e r th o se fa c to rs o r to sta te aff i r m at i vel yt hatt he fa ct or s had bee n cons i der ed. ” I d. at1221. W e then hel d t hatt he di s tr i ctcour t ' s fai l ur e t o gi ve anyexpl anat i on fori t s r eas oni ng ot hert han a r eci t at i on of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange di d not cons t i tut e pl ai n err or . “W hen the defendanthas notr ai s ed anys ubs t ant i al co n tention s co n ce rnin g n o n -G u idelines § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d the d istri ct co u rt i m pos es a s ent ence w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange, ourpos t - B ookerpr ece dent s do notr equi r e the courtt o expl ai n on the r ecor d how the § 3553( a) fac t or s j us t i fyt heIn L o p e z -F lo re s , w e e x p lic itly d is tin g u is h e d a S e v e n th C ir c u it o p in io n , 2 U ni t ed St at es v. C as t r o- J uar ez, 425 F. 3d 430 ( 7th C i r . 2005) . L opez- Fl or es , 444 F. 3d at1221. T hatopi ni on hel d thata fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o the l ength of a s ent ence aft ert he s ent ence i s i s s ued does notr equi r e pl ai n err orr evi ew . C as tr o- J uar ez, 42 5 F . 3d at43 3-34. Th e rul e i n C astro- Juarez i s not i m pli cat ed in this case b e c a u se th is is a c h a llen g e to th e se n ten c in g m e th o d u se d b yth e d istric t co u rt, and nott o t he l ength of the s ent ence , and bec aus e Lopez- C amas di d notobj ectat anypoi ntt o t he r eas onabl enes s of a gui del i nes - r ange s ent ence . 6 s ent ence . ” I d. 2 T hus , t he onl yr el evantques t i on i s w hetherL opez- C amas’ obj ect i on t o t he cal cul at i on of the s ent enci ng r ange i n the pr es ent ence r eport , w hi ch he made agai n dur i ng t he s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, cons t i tut ed an obj ect i on t o the r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange. I n thatm ot i on, L o p e z -C a m a s o n lyre q u e ste d th a t th e d istric t co u rt g ra n t a d o w n w a rd a dju stm e n t, i . e. , i ts houl d m ake a di ffe r entdet erm i nat i on of w hatt he pr opergui del i nes r ange w as . T hi s w as t he onl yar gum enthe r ai s ed; al though B ookerhad bee n deci ded m ont hs befor e hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, L opez- C amas made abs ol ut el yno m ent i on of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent enci ng di s cr et i on. H ad he made anym ent i on of r eas onabl enes s ort he § 3553( a) fac t or s , t hi s w oul d be a s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent c a se . H o w e v e r, as w e e x p lain e d in L o p e z -F lo re s, th e fa ilu re to a rg u e th a t a s ent ence w i t hi n t he gui del i nes r ange w oul d be unr eas onabl e l eave s t he di s tr i ct c o u rt w ith o u t n o tice a llo w in g it t o re c o n sid e r th e m a tter u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), if w arr ant ed. “A l t hough . . . i ti s unnece s s aryt o ar gue t o the di s tr i ctcourtaft er i m pos i t i on of the s ent ence t hatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl yl ong, t he us ual7

r eas ons forr equi r i ng a cont empora neous obj ect i on appl yt o chal l enges t o the d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s m e th o d o f a rr iv in g a t a s e n te n c e .” L o p e z -F lo re s , 4 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 1 . N ot hi ng i n L opez- C amas’ obj ect i ons r efe rr ed t o the met hod byw hi ch the di s tr i ct cour tul t i m at el ydet erm i ned the s ent ence – i n fac t , unt i l thi s appea l , he di d not a rg u e th a t a s e n ten c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s w o u ld n o t b e in a c c o rd w ith § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A s s u c h , p la in e rr o r r e v ie w a p p lie s . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notcomm i tpl ai n err or . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w hen t her e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati 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 t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al p roc ee d ing s. ” U n it ed S tat es v . G o n za lez-H u erta, 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . L opez- C amas r ai s es no ar gum entthat d is tin g u is h e s th is c a s e f ro m L o p e z -F lo re s , a n d , th e re , w e fo u n d n o e rr o r. A c c o rd in g ly, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c o m m it p la in e rr o r. AF F I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge