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, 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 i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### M ar c h 22,2007 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- 2037 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) DO NR AD O A NTO NI O R EYEZ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o. C R -05-209 7-W P J)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

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 erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ' r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thout o ra l ar g u m e n t. D e fe n d a n t - A p p e l l a n tD o n r a d o A n t o n i o R e ye z p l e a d e d g u i l ty t o r e e n try b y a depor t ed al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a )(1 ), (a )(2 ), an d (b )(2 ). O n a p p e a l, R e y e z a sk s th is c o u rt toR ey ez c l ai m ed he r eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es t o hel p r el i eve the chi l d- 1 r ear i ng bur dens i m pos ed on hi s chi l dr en’ s m at ernal gr andpar ent s aft ert he c h ild re n ’s m o th e r a b a n d o n e d th e m . T h e c irc u m sta n c e s a lleg e d b yR e y e z c o u ld n o t b e v e ri fie d b yth e p ro b a tio n o ffic e r o r R e y e z ’s d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. -2- r evi ew onl yt he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and affi rm . U n ite d S ta te s B o rd e r P a tr o l a g e n ts a p p re h e n d e d R e y e z , a c itiz e n o f M e x ic o , aboutt hi r t y - fi ve mi l es w es tof C ol um bus , N ew M exi co, on J ul y14, 2005. Fur t her i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed R ey ez ha d been de por t ed t o M exi co i n A pr i l 2004 aft er r ece i vi ng a s i xt y - ni ne mont h s ent ence i n Fl or i da i n A ugus t2001 fora s t at e fe l ony m ans l aught erconvi ct i on. R ey ez a dm i t t ed t o the age nt s w ho appr ehende d hi m t hat h e d id n o t h a v e p e rm is s io n to e n te r t h e U n ite d S ta te s . A ts ent enci ng, R ey ez di d notcont es tthe pr obat i on offi cer ’ s cal cul at i on of hi s bas e offens e l evel as ei ghtort he i m pos i t i on of a s i xt een- l evel enhanc ement u n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (a) an d (b)(1 )(A )(i i) , resp ec ti v ely . R ey ez d id, ho w ev er, m o v e fo r d o w n w a rd G u id e lin e s d e p a rt u re s b a s e d o n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is c a s e . H e expl ai ned he r eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es beca us e he ha d tw o chi l dr en i n the countr yw ho neede d hi s as s i s t ance . B as ed on hi s benevol entr eas ons for 1 r etur ni ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es , he as ked the courtt o cons i dera depa r tur e under § 5K 2. 11. H e al s o as ked the courtt o departunder§ 4A 1. 3, cl ai m i ng the cal culat i on of h i s cr i m i nal hi st oryas cat ego ryII I overr epresent ed the ser i ou sness-3-

of hi s pr i orcr i m i nal conduct . Fi nal l y , R ey ez a r gued gene r al l ythathi s cas e w as out s i de the hea r t l and of c as es and w arr ant ed a de partur e under§ 5K 2. 0. Pr ovi di ng det ai l ed r eas ons fori t s deci s i on, the s ent enci ng courtr ej ect ed R ey ez ’s pro ffere d g rou n d s fo r de p arture a n d d isag ree d w ith R ey ez ’s char act er i zat i on of hi s cas e as out s i de the hea r t l and. A ft erpr ovi di ng a thr eepoi ntdepartur e foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , the courtcal cul at ed R ey ez’ s t ot al offense l evel as t w enty -one, w hich, com bined w i th h i s cr i m i nal hi st orypo i nts , y i el ded an a dvi s or ys ent enci ng r ange of for ty - s i x t o fi fty - s even mont hs . T he cour tt hen w enton t o r efe r ence t he fa ct or s s etoutat18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , pay i ng par t i cul arat t ent i on t o( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) , and conc l uded a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange w as appr opr i at e. T he courts ent ence d R ey ez t o for ty - ei ght m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand r ecomm ended the governm entbegi n r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s wh i l e Re y e z s e r v e d h i s p r i s o n t e rm. O n a p p e a l, R e y e z c h a llen g e s o n lyth e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is sen tenc e u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , es s ent i al l yas ki ng t hi s cour tt o cons i derw hethert he l ength of the s ent ence i m pos ed w as fai rand j us t . N ow her e does R ey ez c hal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cal cul at i on of the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange ori t s r ej ect i on of hi s r eques t ed gr ounds for departur e, nordoes he ar gue the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) fa c to rs . C

f . Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , __ F . 3 d __ , N o . 0 6 - 2 1 3 8 , 2 0 0 7 WL 5 7 6 0 3 4 , at * 1 (1 0 th C ir. F e b . 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). It is w e ll-es tab lish e d in th is c irc u it th a t,T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yhear d or al ar gum enti n tw o cas es w hi ch may 2 im p ac t th e w ayfe d era l app ell ate c o u rt s rev iew sen tenc es a fter B ooker . See Un itedS ta tes v . R ita , 1 7 7 F e d . A p p ’x 3 5 7 , cer t . gr ant ed , 127 S. C t . 551 ( 2006) (N o . 0 6 -5 7 5 4 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C lai bor ne , 4 3 9 F .3 d 4 7 9 (8 th C ir .), cer t . gr ant ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 5 5 1 (20 0 6 ) (N o . 0 6 -51 6 8 ). B ec au se th is co u rtd eterm ines R ey ez ’s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , t her e w oul d be no nee d fo r re h e a rin g in th e e v e n t th a t R ita o r C lai bor ne m odi fi es appel l at e r evi ew of di s t r i ctcourts ent ence s w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. -4- w h en a d istri ct co u rtsen tenc es a d efen d an t w ith in a p rop erlyca lculated ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange, t he s ent ence i s “ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s on appea l . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . I n t hi s cas e, R ey ez ha s notpr ovi ded anyar gum entorpoi nt ed t o any evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . E ven w i thout t he Kris tlp resu m p ti o n o f re aso n ab lene ss, ho w ev er, th is co u rtco n clud es R ey ez ’s s ent ence w as bas ed on a r eas oned and r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng co u rt ’s d iscreti o n u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). A ccord Uni t ed Stat es v. Trax l er , 2 __ F. 3d __, N os . 05- 2370, 06- 2179, 2007 W L 614266, at*6 ( 10th C i r . M ar . 1, 20 07 ). A ccordi ng l y , R ey ez’s sent ence is AF F I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge