United States v. Marta Gonzalez-Lopez

612 F. App'x 247
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 13, 2015
Docket14-40916
StatusUnpublished

This text of 612 F. App'x 247 (United States v. Marta Gonzalez-Lopez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Marta Gonzalez-Lopez, 612 F. App'x 247 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Marta Gonzalez-Lopez pleaded guilty to: attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; false representation to be a citizen of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911; and making a false statement to a federal agency and agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. She was sentenced, inter alia, to 57 months’ imprisonment. In calculating that sentence, the court increased Gonzalez’ advisory Sentencing Guideline offense level by 16, pursuant to Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) (pre-deportation conviction for certain drug-trafficking offenses). The enhancement was based on Gonzalez’ 2010 Texas conviction for possession, with intent to deliver, 400 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a).

Although post -Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008).

On two bases, Gonzalez contends her ■2010 conviction was not a drug-trafficking offense: the conviction could have been imposed for administration of a controlled substance (she concedes this issue is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve it for possible further review); and delivery under § 481.112(a) encompasses unremuner-ated transfers (as she concedes, this issue is subject only to plain-error review). Our precedent, however, forecloses both issues. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.2015), petition for cert. docketed (23 June 2015) (No. 14-10355); United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002, 1008 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. docketed (2 July 2015) (No. 15-5047); United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015).

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 die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez
517 F.3d 751 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Rogelio Teran-Salas
767 F.3d 453 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Juan Martinez-Lugo
782 F.3d 198 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Fermin Rodriguez-Bernal
783 F.3d 1002 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Moore v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
135 S. Ct. 1916 (Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
612 F. App'x 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marta-gonzalez-lopez-ca5-2015.