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 th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 51245 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. RO GE L I O Q UI RO Z
- CARR I L L O , 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- 1 9 5 4 - ALL B ef oreK IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. PE R CURIAM * Rog e l i o Q uir o z - Car r il l o ap pe al s t he 2 7- m o nt h s e nt e nc e i m po s e d f o l l o w i ng h i s c on vi ct i onon a gu il t y pl ea to bei n g an ali enf ou n d u n l aw f

u l ly i n t h e U n i t ed S ta t e s a fte rp r e v io u s lyh a v in gb e e n re m o v e d . S ee 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . H e contend s th e sentence i m posed by th e di st ri ct court w as un reasona bl e becau se i tw as gr eat ert han nece ss ar y t o m ee tt he go al s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . Al t hough United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D October 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

Q ui r o z c o nc e de s t he a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s r ang e w as pr o pe r ly c al c ul ate d, he c o nt e nds : t he r ang e o f 2 7- 33 m o nt hs w as t o o s e ve r e ; t he il l e ga lr e e nt r y gui de l i ne i s no te m pir i c al l y bas e d a nd d o ubl e - c o unt e d hi s c r i m i nalr e c o r d; a nd, t he presum pti onof

reasonab l en ess shou l d n o t a pp ly t o hi s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s e nt e nc e . Qui r o z f

ur t he rc l ai m s : hi s of

fe ns e di d notpos e a dang e rt o ot he r s ; a nd t h e gu i del i n es ran ge di d n otaccoun tf or hi s m ot ive f

or r een t eri n g, w h i ch rel ated to fa m ilyis s u e s . A l th ou gh po st- B ooker , t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a r e a dv i s o r y o nly, a nd a nu lti m a te se n te n ce is re v iew e dforre a so n a b len e s s u n d e r a n a b u se -ofdi scr et i onst an da rd, t h e di st ri ctcourtm u stst illpro perl y cal cul ate th e gu i del i n es e n te n c in gr a n g e fo ru s e ind e c id in go n th e s e n te n c e to im p o s e . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 28S. Ct . 5 86 , 596 (200 7) . I n t hatr e s pe c t , it s a ppli c at i o n o f t he gui de l i ne s i s r e vi e w e d de no vo ; its fa c tu a l fi n d in g s , o n lyfo rcle a re r r o r . E .g ., Un i t ed Stat es v. C isn er o s-G u t i errez , 5 1 7 F .3 d7 5 1 , 7 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed St at e sv . Vi l lega s , 4 0 4 F .3d3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A s noted, pu rsuan tt o G a ll , w e e nga gei n ab if ur c at e d revi e w o f

t he s e n te n c e im p o s e db yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Un i t ed Stat es v. D el ga d o- Mart i n ez , 564 F . 3d750 , 752 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . Fir st , w e consi der w h et h er th e di st ri ctco u rt c o m m itt e da“s ig n ific a n t p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r”. I d. at 752 - 53. I f, as i n t h i s c ase, t he r e i s nos uc h e r r o r , w e t he n r e vi e w t he s ubs t antiver e as o nabl en ess of t he s e n te n c e im p o s e d , a s n o te da b o v e , fo ra na b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d. at751- 53. Bec aus e Q uir o z di d no tr ai s e hi s e m pir i c al
- e vi de nc e a nd d o ubl e - c o unt i ng c o n te n tio n s ind is tr ic t c o u r t, w e re v ie w th e m o n lyfo rp la ine r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led (J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 8 -1 1 0 9 9 ). Q u i roz’cl ai m t h at hi s w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s en t en ce i s not en t i t l ed to a presum pti onof

reasonab l en ess, becau se th e rel evan tgu i del i n e i s n otsup ported b ye m p ir ic a l e v id e n c e , la c k s m e r it. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. D u a rte , 569 F. 3d 528, 5 2 9 -3 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pe t i t i o n f o r c e r t . f

i led(A u g . 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 9 -6 1 9 5 );3

Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 64F. 3da t3 66 - 67 . Like w i s e , w e ha ver ej e c t e d the a s s e r tio nth a t u s in g a p r io r c o n v ic tio n to d e te r m in e th e a p p lic a b le o ffe n s e le v e l, a s w e ll a s to d e te r m in e ad e fe n d a n t’s c r i m i n a l h is to r ys c o r e , re s u lts in im p e r m is s ib le d o u b le co u n tin g . S eeD u a rte , 569 F . 3dat 529 - 31. I n short , t h ere i s no error , pl ai nor ot h erw i se, f or th ese t w o i ssues. Q u i roz’asser t i on s th at he sh ou l d h ave receiveda l ow er s en t en ce based on hi s m o t ivef

o rr e t ur ni ng t o t he U nit e d St at e s a nd t hathi s o f fe ns e o ve r s t at e d the ser i ou sness of

hi s c on du ctare i n suff i ci en tt o overcom e t h e presum pti onof rea son a b l en ess of h i s w i th i n -gu i d eli n es se n ten ce. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ezHerrera , 5 2 3 F .3 d5 5 4 , 5 6 5 -6 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 4 (20 0 8 ). AF F I RMED.