
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar Lerma RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jesus Oscar Rodriguez-Lerma, also known as Jesus Oscar Rodriguez, also known as Oscar Rodriguez-Lerma, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-20728
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 8, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Oscar Lerma Rodriguez (Lerma) appeals the 90-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry of a deported alien. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the advisory guidelines range. He also contends that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary to comply with the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a), and he argues for the first time that he should be resentenced because the decisions in Gall v. United States,-U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States,-U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558,169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), broadened the district court’s discretion in imposing a non-guidelines sentence and the 16-level enhancement for having a prior crime of violence is not empirically supported.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 596-97, this court must determine whether the sentence imposed is procedurally sound, including whether the calculation of the advisory guidelines range is correct, and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. Review is for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 597. “Not all errors in determining a defendant’s guidelines sentence require reversal.” United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2008). We may affirm where the district court imposes a non-Guidelines sentence that did not “directly result” from an error in calculating the Guidelines. Id.

At sentencing, the defendant argued that an eight-level enhancement should apply, and the Government argued that the PSR correctly calculated that the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 should apply. The district court considered the two guidelines ranges, rejected both of them, and permissibly exercised its discretion to impose a non-Guidelines sentence. We find no reversible procedural error. See United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 396-97 (5th Cir.2008); Bonilla, 524 F.3d at 656-57, 659; United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 526-27 (5th Cir. 2006).

Given Lerma’s extensive criminal record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 90-month sentence. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008). Finally, Lerma has not established plain error with respect to his assertions that he should be resentenced based on Gall and Kimbrough and because the 16-level enhancement was not empirically supported. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     