Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40475

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COREY MUQELL JILES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-54-1

Before GARWOOD, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Corey Muqell Jiles appeals the 35-month concurrent sentences imposed

in April 2009 by the district court following his guilty plea conviction on each of

two counts of transporting illegal aliens for profit. Jiles argues that the district

court committed reversible error by adjusting his offense level under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.1(b)(6). He argues that the facts of his case are substantially the same as

those in United States v. McKinley, 272 F. App’x 412 (5th Cir. 2008), in which

this court found that the § 2L1.1(b)(6) adjustment was not applicable. The facts

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2010
No. 09-40475

2

of the instant case are virtually indistinguishable from those in McKinley, 272

F. App’x at 414. It is thus arguable that the district court’s application of

§ 2L1.1(b)(6) was error. 

“Not all errors in determining a defendant’s guideline sentence require

reversal.” United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2008), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 904 (2009). Where a district court considers the sentencing

ranges that might apply to defendant with and without a disputed enhancement

and otherwise explains its sentence in terms of § 3553, the resulting sentence

does not result from an incorrect application of the Guidelines. United States v.

Ruiz-Arriaga, 565 F.3d 280, 282 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 227 (2009); see

also United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2008) (an incorrect

application of the Guidelines is reversible error only if the non-Guideline

sentence “resulted” from the error). 

The district court determined that without the reckless endangerment

adjustment, Jiles’s advisory sentencing range would have been 15 to 21 months

of imprisonment. The court stated that 

“[i]n the event that the court is wrong as far as the application of the

reckless endangerment, nonetheless the court believes that a

sentence of something more than what the guideline range would be

. . . without the reckless endangerment, just so that we’re clear here,

without the reckless endangerment we would be looking at . . .

fifteen to 21 months. And the court does not think that under the

circumstances both of offense and the manner in which it was

committed and of the history that I have here as to your own prior

criminal history that a sentence in that range would be appropriate.

The court believes that a sentence of 35 months is an appropriate

and reasonable sentence in this case, and the court would impose

that sentence, even if it were wrong about the reckless

endangerment.”

Jiles also argues (as he did below, 3 R. 149) that his non-guideline

sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review the substantive

reasonableness of the non-Guideline sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.

United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007); United States v. Simmons, 568 F.3d

Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2010
No. 09-40475

3

564, 566 (5th Cir. 2009). We are unable to conclude that the district court

abused its discretion in determining that the 35 month sentence imposed was

reasonable. The district court gave extensive consideration to Giles’ argument

but determined that the record counseled in favor of a sentence at the low end

of the enhanced range. The trial court considered the premeditated nature of

the conduct, the fact that the defendant did not know who he was transporting

into the United States, the defendant’s previous criminal conduct, and the

manner in which the crime was committed. In fact, the district court made a

finding of fact that the defendant transported these aliens in an inhumane

fashion. Contrary to Giles’ argument otherwise, the district court’s statements

on the record were adequate to establish that the alternative non-Guideline

sentence was substantively reasonable and that the court properly considered

and applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the sentence is

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 09-40475 Document: 00511025542 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2010