United States v. Lopez-Contreras

Opinion

Case: 22-50323 Document: 00516612267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50323 FILED January 17, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Alberto Lopez-Contreras,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:21-CR-1533-1 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Luis Alberto Lopez-Contreras appeals the 50-month within- guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. According to Lopez- Contreras, the sentence imposed by the district court was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50323 Document: 00516612267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2023

No. 22-50323

and, therefore, was substantively unreasonable. He asserts that a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range, or 46 months, would still have been the longest sentence that he has served by at least 10 months. By requesting a lesser term at the sentencing hearing, Lopez- Contreras preserved his substantive reasonableness challenge. See Holguin- Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020). Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Lopez-Contreras has not rebutted the presumption that the 50-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court considered his arguments for a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range and determined that the 50-month sentence was appropriate based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Lopez- Contreras has not shown that the sentence does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represented a clear error in the balancing of the sentencing factors. See id. His argument that a 46-month sentence was appropriate amounts to a disagreement with the propriety of the sentence and the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED.