A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent 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 . 

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

### M ar c h 27,2007 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, N o. 06- 3300 v. (D . K ansas) J OS E CR UZ M ONT E RO - M ONT E RO ,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C R - 2 0 0 1 9 - C M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. O n J anuary25, 2006, J os e C ruz M ont er o- M ont er o ( M ont er o) w as i ndi ct ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof K ans as on one countof unl aw ful r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es aft erdepor t at i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and (b) (2) . H e pleaded g uil t yand on A ug ust7 w as sent enced t o 7 0 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l he ar gues t hatt he courti m pr oper l y“doubl e- count ed” on e of h i s previ ou s cr i m i nal offenses byusi ng i ti n calcul at i ng bo t h h i s offen se-2-

le v e l a n d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. H e a lso c o n ten d s th a t h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b ly lon g u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND T he pr es ent ence r epor t( PSR ) comput ed M r . M ont er o’ s offe ns e l evel of 22 b ys ta rt in g w ith a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f e ig h t, s ee U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u idelines (U S S G ) § 2 L 1 . 2 (a), ad d ing 1 6 fo r be ing p rev iou slyd ep o rt ed af ter a drug-t raffi cking co nv i ct i on for w hich he recei ved a sent ence o f fi ve y ears ’ im p ri s o n m e n t, s ee i d. § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) , and s ubt r act i ng t w o foracc ept i ng re s p o n s ib ility, s ee i d. § 3E 1. 1( a) . H i s cr i m i nal - hi s t or ycat egoryof V w as bas ed on t hr ee pr evi ous drug convi ct i ons and an out s t andi ng bench w arr antt hati s s ued w h en h e fail ed to co m p let e a lcoh o l trea tm en t after a D U I co n v ict ion . In p a rticu lar , h e re c e iv e d th re e c rim in a l-h isto ryp o in ts fo r th e c o n v ictio n u se d to i ncr eas e hi s bas e offens e l evel by16. M r . M ont er o obj ect ed t o t he PSR ats ent enci ng, cont endi ng t hathi s pr i or fel onyconvi ct i on w as unr eas onabl y“doubl e- count ed. ” H e al s o ar gued thateac h of the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s uppor t ed a be l ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcour toverrul ed hi s obj ect i on t o doubl e count i ng, but fur t herr educe d M r . M ont er o’ s offe ns e l evel byone foracc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili tya n d se n ten c e d h im to 7 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t.-3-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. M o n te ro c h a lle n g e s th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 261 ( 2005) ( r evi ew i ng s ent ence s for unr eas onabl enes s ) . “[T] he r eas onabl enes s s t andar d of r evi ew s etfor t h i n B ooker nece s s ar i l yencompas s es bot h t he r eas onabl enes s of the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as t he m ethodbyw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1055 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . “R eas onabl enes s r evi ew i s gui ded byt he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , w hi ch i ncl ude the natur e of the offe ns e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as t he nee d fort he s ent ence t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , t o pr ot ect t he publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defendantw i t h neede d t r ai ni ng ort r eatm ent . ” Id. at 1053 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s “fa ctual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand l egal det er m i nat i ons de novo. ” Id. at1054. W e r ece nt l yr ej ect ed a c ont ent i on t hata pr evi ous convi ct i on m aynotbe used to cal culat e bo t h an i l l egal r eentr ant’ s cr i m i nal hi st oryas w el l as hi s offen se le v e l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , N o . 0 6 -2 1 3 8 , 2 0 0 7 W L 5 7 6 0 3 4 (1 0 th C ir . F eb . 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). W e sim il arlyreject M r. M o n tero’s a rgu m en t. W e “ are m i ndful of t he gene r al rul e thatt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pl ai nl yunder s t ands t he conc eptof doubl e count i ng, and expr es s l yforbi ds i tw her e i ti s noti nt ended. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G r oves , 369 F. 3d 1178, 1186 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . N o s uch pr ohi bi t i on i s pr es enther e.-4-

I n t he cont extof i l l egal - r eentr ycr i m es , notonl yhas t he Sent enci ng C o m m iss io n d e c lin e d to fo rb id d o u b le c o u n tin g e x p re ss ly , it h a s e x p re ss ly a p p ro v e d o f

it. See U SSG § 2L 1. 2 cmt . 6 ( convi ct i on us ed foran offens e- l evel enhanc ement under§ 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) i s “notexcl uded fr om cons i der at i on of w hether th a t co n v ictio n re c e iv e s c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts . . . .”); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez - F i er r os , 453 F. 3d 309, 313 ( 6t h C i r . 2006) ( “[B]e caus e the A ppl i cat i on N ot e 6 expl i ci t l yal l ow s fordoubl e count i ng undert hi s G ui del i ne, defe ndant ’ s pr i m aryr at i onal e forw hyt hi s G ui del i ne i s unr eas onabl e i s not p ersu asiv e.”). W e a ls o reje c t M r. M o n te ro ’s c la im th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n re a s o n a b ly lo n g . T he di s t r i ctcour tcons ul t ed the advi s or ySent enci ng G ui del i nes and s aw no r eas on t o varyfr om t hem. A l t hough t her e w er e s om e ext enuat i ng fac t or s , t he s ent ence w as appr opr i at e fors om eone w ho had tw i ce be en deport ed, had bee n convi ct ed of thr ee drug cr i m es , and w as w ant ed on an out s t andi ng bench w arr ant a t th e tim e o f

h is a rre st. I I I . CO NC L US I ON We AF F I RM t h e j u d g me n tb e l o w. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge