Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40475 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. CO RE Y M U Q EL L JI LE S, 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 ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 09- C R

- 54- 1
B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C orey M u qel lJi l es app eal s t h e 35-m on t h concurrent sentences i m posed i n A pri l 200 9 by t h e di st ri ct court f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea conv i ct i on on each of t w o coun t s of

t ran sport i n g i l l egal al i en s f or prof i t . Ji l es argu es that t h e di st ri ct c o u r tc o mm i t t e dr e v e r s ib l e e r r o rb ya dj u s t i n gh i s o f fe n s e l e v e lu n d e rU. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 1(b) ( 6)
. H e a r gues t hatthe fac t s of h i s c as e a r e s ubst ant i al l y t he s am e a s t ho s e i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. McKi n ley , 272 F
. A pp ’ x 412 ( 5th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) , i n w h i ch th i s cou rt fou n dth a t th e § 2 L 1
. 1 (b)( 6 ) a dj u stm en t w a s n ot ap p l i ca b l e. T h e facts United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2010N o. 09- 40475

2 o f t he i ns t antc as e a r e v i r t uall y i ndi s t i ngu i s hab l e f r o m t ho s e i n McKin ley , 272 F
. A pp ’ x at 414. I ti s t h u s ar g u able t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of § 2 L 1 .1 (b )(6 ) w a s e r r o r . “ N otal lerr ors i n deter m i n i n g a defend a n t ’ s gui del i n e sentence requi re rev ersa l
. ” Un itedS ta tes v. B o n illa , 5 2 4 F
. 3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 6 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ), c e r t. d enie d , 1 2 9 S
. Ct
. 9 0 4 ( 2 0 0 9 )
. W h e r e ad i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r s t h e s e n t e n c i ng r ang e s t hatm i ghta pply t o de fe nda nt w it h a nd wi t ho utadi s put e d e nhan c e m e nt an d otherw i se expl ai n s it s s en t en ce i n t erm s of § 3553 , t h e res u l t i n g sentence d o e s n o t r e s u lt fr o m a n in c o r r e c t a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s . Uni t e d S t at e s v. R uiz-A r r i aga , 5 6 5 F .3 d2 8 0 , 2 8 2 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 2 2 7 (2 0 0 9 ); see als o Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u h on , 54 1 F. 3d 39 1, 39 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 08 ) ( an i n corr ect ap pl i c at i o n o f

t he G ui de l i ne s i s r e ve r s ibl e e r r o ro nl y i f t he no n- G ui de l i ne s e n te n c e “r e s u lte d ” fr o m th e e r r o r). The di s t r i c tcour tde t e r m i ne d thatw i t ho utt he r e c kl e s s e nda nge r m e nt adj us t m e nt , J i l e s ’ s a dv i s o r y s e nt e nc i ng r ang e w o ul d hav e b e e n 1 5 t o 2 1 m o nt hs of i m p ri son m en t. T h e cou rt statedtha t

“ [i] n t he e ve ntt hatt he c o ur ti s w r o ng as far as t he a ppli c at i o n o f t he reck l ess en d a n g e rm en t, n on eth eless th e cou rt beli ev es th a t a se nt enc e o f

s om et hi ng m or e t han w hat t he gui del i ne r ange w oul d be

. . . w i t h ou tt h e rec kles s end an germ en t , j u stso t h at w e’ re c l ear here, w ith o u t th e reck l ess en d a n ge rm en t w e w ou l d b e l oo k i n g at . . . f i f t e e n t o 2 1 m o n t h s . An d t h e c o u r t d o e s n o t t h i n k t h a t u n d e rt he c i r c um st ance s bot h of of fens e a nd t he m anner i n w hi c h i tw as com m i t t ed an d of

the h i st ory tha tI h ave h ere as t o you r ow n pri or cri m i n alhi st ory t h at a s en t en ce i n t h at r an ge w ou l d be app ropri ate. T h e cou r t b eli ev es th a t a sen ten ce of 35 m on th s i s an ap p rop ri a te an d reason able sentence i n t h i s c a se , an d the court w ou l d i m pose t h at sentence, even i f i t w ere w rong abou t t h e re ck l ess e n d a n g e r m e n t.” Jil e s a l s o a r gue s ( as he di d be l o w , 3 R. 1 49 ) t hathi s no n- gui de l i ne se nt enc e i s subs t ant ively unre as onabl e. W e r evi ew t he s ubst anti ve r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e n o n -G u id e lin e s e n te n c e fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Gal lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S .C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 -9 8 (2 0 0 7 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Si m m o ns , 568 F. 3d Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2010N o. 09- 40475

3 564 , 566 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)
. W e are un able t o concl u de that t h e di st ri ctcourt abuse d its di sc r et i on i n det er m i ni ng t hatt he 35 m ont h se nt enc e i m pos ed w as r e as o nab l e . The di s t r i c tco ur tgav e ex t e ns iveco ns i de r at i o n t o G i l e s ’a r gum e nt butde t e r m i ne d thatt he r e c o r d c o uns e l e d i n fav o rof a se nt e nc e att he l o w e nd of t h e enh a n ced rang e. Th e t ri alcourtconsi dered the prem edi t ated na t u re of t he c o nduc t , t he fac tt hatt he de fe nda ntdi d no tkno w w ho he w as t r ans po r t i ng i nt o t he U ni t e d St at e s , t he d e fe nda nt ’ s pr e vi o us c r i m i nalc o nduc t , a nd the m an n er in w h i ch the cr i m e w as com m i t t ed. I n fact , t h e di st ri ctcourtm ad e a f i ndi ng o f

fac tt hatt he de fe nda ntt r ans po r t ed t he s e a l i e ns i n a n i nhum ane fash i on . C on traryto G i l es’arg u m en t othe rw i se, th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s statem en ts o n t he r e c o r d wer e a deq u ate t o e s t ab l i s h t hatt he a l t e r nat iveno n- G ui de l i ne sentence w as substan t ivel y reasona bl e an d that t h e courtproperl y consi dered a n da p p l i e d t h e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e s e n te n c e is A F F IR M E D
. Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2010