
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose De Jesus CAMACHO-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose De Jesus Camacho, also known as Jose Camacho-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-41141
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 6, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U~S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose De Jesus Camacho-Hernandez (Camacho) appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation, The sentence was within a properly ealcu-lated advisory guidelines range that was increased by a prior conviction for a crime of violence (COV).

Camacho contends that Gall v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), have abrogated previous Fifth Circuit decisions by broadening the district court’s discretion to impose a nonguidelines sentence. He argues, therefore, that the sentencing court labored under a misconception that it could not sentence him below the advisory J guidelines range in the absence of “extraordinary circumstances” or based on the court’s disagreement Math guidelines 1C^’

We review for plain error because Camacho did not argue in the district court that this court’s precedent was unduly restrictive. See United States v. Campos— Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 391-92 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2959, — L.Ed.2d-(2008). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court was constrained by this court’s precedent from considering any of Camachos arguments for a nonguidelines sentence. Accordingly, there was no plain error. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339.

n , i , 1,1,1- , Camacho also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because there is no empirical support for U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the Guideline mandating the COV increase. He did not challenge the empirical basis of § 2L1.2 in the district court, so his contention is reviewed for plain error. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. Nothing in the record suggests that the district court believed that it was precluded by circuit precedent from imposing a lesser sentence in the face of § 2L1.2. Moreover, pre-Gall precedent did not prevent a district court from giving a lower sentence than advised by § 2L1.2. See id.; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 557 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008).

Camacho shows no plain error. The district eourt>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.
     