Case: 12-10099 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10099
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:11-cr-00032-HL-TQL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LOPEZ-CHANG,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(July 27, 2012)
Before BARKETT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Lopez-Chang appeals his 41-month sentence after he plead guilty to the
Case: 12-10099 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 2 of 4
charge of re-entry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. ' 1326(a) and (b)(2).
Lopez-Chang=s total offense level was 21 which, combined with his criminal history
of category II, yielded an advisory guideline of 41 to 51 months. Despite the fact
that the district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guideline,
Lopez-Chang argues that his sentence was procedurally and substantively
unreasonable under Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review a
sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall,
552 U.S. at
41.
Lopez-Chang argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable under
18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a) because the court failed to consider the sentencing factors
enumerated therein. 1 In particular, Lopez-Chang argues that the district court erred
when it failed to consider the mitigating evidence presented by his defense counsel. 2
The government argues that the district court need only acknowledge that it
considered the defendant=s arguments and the ' 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
1
See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51 (providing examples of procedural error that could render a
sentence unreasonable which include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the '
3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviations from the Guidelines
range.”)
2
The mitigating evidence presented by Lopez-Chang=s defense counsel included an
assertion that he had not been convicted of any new crimes since illegally re-entering the United
States with the traffic stop that brought him to the attention of authorities being his only run-in
with law enforcement.
2
Case: 12-10099 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 3 of 4
Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). Failure to discuss mitigating evidence
does not indicate that the court “erroneously >ignored= or failed to consider this
evidence.” United States v. Amedeo,
487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). Although
the district court did not specifically mention the mitigating evidence presented by
Lopez-Chang=s counsel, it stated that it had considered the ' 3553(a) factors in
reaching its decision. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s decision
was procedurally unreasonable.
Lopez-Chang also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
He notes that a district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. '
3553(a)(2), including reflection of the seriousness of the offense, deterrence of
criminal conduct, and protection of the public. In determining whether a
sentencing decision was substantively unreasonable, this court considers the totality
of the circumstances. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Livesay,
525 F.3d 1081,
1091 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence that is within the guidelines range is normally
considered substantively reasonable. United States v. Hunt,
526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th
Cir. 2008). We will reverse only if “we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
' 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable
3
Case: 12-10099 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 4 of 4
sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179,
1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). In this case, Lopez-Chang was assigned
a sentence of 41 months, which was the lowest choice in the applicable guidelines
range. Finding nothing in the record that evidences the existence of a mitigating
factor which would allow this court to conclude that the district court erred in not
making a downward departure under ' 3553(b)(1) from the range indicated in the
sentencing guidelines, we conclude that Lopez-Chang=s sentence was also
substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4
