
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roylan ROMERO-CORONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10320
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 30, 2010.
    Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Roylan Romero-Coronado (Romero) appeals the 72-month sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following his prior deportation.

Romero’s sole argument on appeal is that in imposing his sentence (an upward variance from the guidelines range), the district court procedurally erred by failing to acknowledge or explain its disagreement with the United States Sentencing Commission’s policy decision that the severity of a reentry offense should be measured by the defendant’s most serious pre-deportation conviction, not by the defendant’s number of deportations. In support, Romero relies in large part on United States v. Simmons, 568 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2009), wherein we stated that when a district court disagrees with the Guidelines’ policy considerations, “what is necessary is that a court explain its reasons for disagreeing with [same].” Id. at 570. Romero’s claim of procedural error is premised on his assertion that the Sentencing Commission has made the policy decision that courts should not consider an illegal reentry defendant’s prior deportations in assessing the severity of the defendant’s offense conduct. Romero, however, points to no provision, policy statement, or commentary within the Guidelines that supports his assertion. Accordingly, Simmons is not applicable to the instant case, and Romero has not shown that the district court committed any procedural error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The district court’s judgment is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     