IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 5, 2008
No. 07-41261
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDWIN SIFREDO GALDAMEZ-FUNES
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:07-CR-443-ALL
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edwin Sifredo Galdamez-Funes (Galdamez) appeals the sentence of 77
months imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of being unlawfully
present in the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Galdamez argues that in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586
(2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), his sentence
should be vacated and remanded. He asserts that this court’s precedent
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
No. 07-41261
improperly restricted the district court’s ability to deviate from the Guidelines
absent extraordinary circumstances, a standard rejected in Gall. He also
challenges the imposition of a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2, asserting that the Guideline is flawed and not entitled to deference.
Although Galdamez generally argued that the guidelines range was
excessive for this offense and that he should receive a below guidelines sentence,
he did not raise the specific challenges to his sentence that he raises here, i.e.,
that the sentencing regime was unduly restrictive or that the 16-level
enhancement is flawed and not entitled to deference. Accordingly, we review
those arguments for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez,
530 F.3d 381, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Campos-Maldonado,
531 F. 3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Given our dispositions of similar challenges
in Rodriguez-Rodriguez and Campos-Maldonado, we conclude that Galdamez
has failed to demonstrate any reversible plain error.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2