United States v. Enamorado-Lopez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 18, 2009
No. 08-51108
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEX ENAMORADO-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:08-CR-178-ALL

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alex Enamorado-Lopez (Enamorado) appeals his 57-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the sentence is greater than
necessary to meet the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
specifically asserts that, in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558
(2007), the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his

*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
 No. 08-51108

within-guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline, U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2, is flawed in that it is not supported by “empirical data and national
experience.”
We have consistently rejected Enamorado’s “empirical data” argument,
concluding that Kimbrough does not question the presumption of reasonableness
and does not require district or appellate courts to independently analyze the
empirical grounding behind each individual guideline. See United States v.
Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-30 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009), pet. for cert. filed,
(June 24, 2009) (No. 08-11099). Because the sentence imposed by the district
court was within the advisory guidelines range of 57 to 71 months of
imprisonment, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United
States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Campos-
Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008).
Enamorado has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that
presumption. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2