United States v. Lopez

Opinion

Case: 22-50758 Document: 00516708029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50758 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 11, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Renee Huerta Lopez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:21-CR-360-2 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Renee Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The district court sentenced her to the guideline maximum of 293 months. She now appeals her sentence. Lopez argues that her sentence was unreasonable because the district

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50758 Document: 00516708029 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2023

No. 22-50758

court failed to provide sufficient explanation for her sentence as required un- der 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). While Lopez characterizes her argument as a chal- lenge to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence, her argument con- stitutes a procedural objection. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). During the sentencing hearing, Lopez did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation. Thus, her argu- ment is subject to plain error review. Id. at 361; see also United States v. Coto- Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585–86 (5th Cir. 2021). We apply the familiar four-past test to assess plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Assuming arguendo that Lopez could meet the first two conditions, she cannot satisfy the third. Lopez has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that her sentence would have been different had the district court more thoroughly explained its reasoning. Thus, she fails to demonstrate that any error affected her substantial rights. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360. AFFIRMED.