P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50897 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. G U AD AL U PE RA M I RE Z- RO SAL ES 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 or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 7 4 9 - ALL B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * G u ad al u pe R am i rez- R osal es (R am i rez) plea d e d gu i l t y t o t h e charge of be i ng an ali e n f

o u n d u n l awf

ul l y i n t he U ni t e d St at e s f o l l o w i ng a pr e vi o us depor t a t i o n. Be c a us e Rami r e z ha d a p r i o r c o nv i c t i o n f o r a fe l o nydr ugtraff i ck i n g o ff

en se, h er b a se o ff

en se leve l w a s i n crea sed b y 16 l ev els p u rsu a n t t o U . S. S. G . § 2 L 1. 2(b) ( 1) (A) . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt e nc e d Ram i r e z w i t hi n t he ap pl i cabl e gu i del i n es r an ge t o 4 1 m on t h s of im pri sonm en ta n d a three- year t erm United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50897

2 o f nonr e po r t i ng s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e . Ram i r e z f i l e d a t i m e l y no t i c e o f a ppe ala nd no w c hall e nge s t he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d. R am i rez c on cedes t h at th i s c ou rtordi n ari l y ap pl i es a p resum pti on of r e a s o n a b le n e s s to w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ca mposMaldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (20 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. Ct . 6 2 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Ci t i ng Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 558, 574- 75 ( 200 7) , she c on t en ds t h at th e presum pti on shou l d n otapp l y i n t h i s c ase becau se § 2 L1. 2 i s no te m pir i c all y s upp o r t e d. The que s t i o n pr e s e nt e d i n Ki m brough w as w he t he r“ a s e nt e nc e . . . o ut s i de t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e i s pe rse unr e as o nab l e w he n i ti s b as e d o n adi s ag r e e m e nt w i th the sen ten ci n g d i sp a ri ty for cra cka n dp ow d er co ca i n e offen ses . ” 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 6 4 . S p e a k in gs p e c ific a llyto t h e c r a c kc o c a in e G u id e lin e s , th e C o u r t s im p ly r ul e d that“i tw o ul d no tb e a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n f

o radi s t r i c tc o ur tt o c o nc l ude w he n s e nt e nc i ng a pa r t i c ul arde fe nda ntt hatt he c r ac k/po w de rdi s pa r i t y yi e l ds a sentence ‘ greater t h an necessary’t o achi eve [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553 ( a) ’ s pu rposes, ev en i n am i n e-ru n cas e.” I d. at575 . I n Ki m brough , t h e C ou rtsai d n ot h i n g of th e a p p l i ca b i l i ty of t h e p resu m p ti on o f rea son a b l en ess . M ore ov er, th e a p p ell a te p r e s u m p tio n ’ s co n tin u e da p p lic a b ilityto § 2 L 1 .2 s e n te n c e s is s u p p o r te db yth is c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Campos- Maldo nado , 53 1 F . 3 dat 33 8 -39 . T h e a p p ell a te presum pti on i s t h eref ore app l i cabl e i n t h i s c ase. R am i r ez al soc ont ends t hather41- m on th s ent enc e w as gr eat ert han n ece ssa ryto acco m p l i sh the go a l s of sen ten ci n g li sted i n § 35 5 3 (a)( 2 ). S h e p oin ts ou tt h at th e i n st an tof fen se di d n oti n volve vi ol en tcondu ctan d d i d n otpose a d a n g e rto o th e r s . S h e fu r th e r c o n te n d s th a t th e o ffe n s e w a s n o t in h e r e n tlye v il and“w as , a tb o t t o m , a n i nt e r nat i o nalt r e s pa s s . ” Shea l s o a s s e r t s t hatt he ap pl i cabl e gu i del i n es ran ge dou bl e coun t ed h er pri or drug tr af f i cki n g convic t i on bec ause it resul t ed i n bot h a 16- l eve lenhance m entunder § 2 L1. 2 and an i n crease i n her cr i m i n alhi st ory sc ore . S h e h as aba n don ed on app ealherN o. 08- 50897

3 a r g u m e n t re g a r d in g c u ltu r a l a s s im ila tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L u ci en , 61 F. 3d 366 , 370 ( 5th C i r. 199 5) . Sh e al so con cedes tha th er argu m en tt h at s h e deserved ale s s e rs e n te n c e b a s e do n th e d is p a r ityth a t r e s u l t s f r o m fa s t t r a c ke a r ly di spo sit i on pr ogr am s i s f or ec l os ed by G om ez- Herrera , 5 2 3 F .3 da t 5 5 7 -6 4 . The di s t r i c tc o ur the ar d Ram i r e z ’ s r e que s tf o ras e nt e nc e b e l ow t he g u id e lin e s ra n g e , b u t t h e co u r t p o in te do u t t h a t R a m ir e z ille g a llyre e n te r e dth is c ountry notl ong af

t erbe i ng r el eas ed f

r om pr i so n. Al so , t he di st r i c tc our tw as di s t urbe d by Ram i r e z ’ s no t i o n t hat t he de s i r e t o be w i t h he r c hi l dr e n j u st i f i ed h er ill eg a lreen tr yo ffe n se. T h e d i stri ct cou rt ulti m a tel y d eterm i n edi n i ts di scr et i on t h at a sentence w i t h i n t h e gu i del i n es ran ge w as app ropri ate. U n der th ose ci rcu m stan ces , R a m i rez h a s n ot sh ow ntha t th e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed i ts di scr et i on i n sel ect i n g a sentence or, consequ en t l y, th a t t h e w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s e n te n c e im p o s e dis u n r e a s o n a b le . S ee G all v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 (2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed Stat es v. New son , 5 1 5 F .3 d3 7 4 , 3 7 9 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 128 S . C t. 2 5 2 2 (2 0 0 8 ). AF F I RMED.