United States v. Lopez-Contreras ( 2023 )

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.
2