Case: 09-40615     Document: 00511082006          Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/15/2010




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

                                                  FILED
                                                                            April 15, 2010
                                     No. 09-40615
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JUAN GUEVARA-RIVERA,

                                                   Defendant - Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:09-CR-174-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        Following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, Juan
Guevara-Rivera was sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment, which
was within the applicable guidelines range. On appeal, he argues that the
district court committed procedural error by failing to address his arguments for
a lesser sentence and that the sentence imposed was substantively
unreasonable.



        *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
   Case: 09-40615    Document: 00511082006 Page: 2        Date Filed: 04/15/2010
                                 No. 09-40615

      “[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular
case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United
States, 

, 356 (2007). The requirement that the district court explain
its sentence may be satisfied if the district court listens to arguments and then
indicates that a sentence within the guidelines range is appropriate. 

59. Here, the district court heard counsel’s argument for a lesser sentence,
specifically rejected those arguments, and stated that a sentence within the
applicable guidelines range satisfied the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See
United States v. Rodriguez, 

, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2008).
      Guevara-Rivera suggests that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because, in calculating his sentencing range, a single prior conviction resulted
in both a sixteen-level enhancement and six of his seven criminal history points.
However, the Guidelines provide for consideration of a prior conviction for both
criminal history and the U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 enhancement. See § 2L1.2, cmt. n.6.
We have rejected the argument that such “double-counting” renders a sentence
unreasonable. See United States v. Duarte, 

, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 

(2009).
      “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 

, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The fact that this court “might
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall v. United States, 

, 51 (2007). We conclude there is “no reason to disturb” the presumption
of reasonableness in this case. See 

.
      AFFIRMED.




                                        2