United States v. Joaquin-Lopez ( 2021 )

Case: 21-40262 Document: 00516064001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40262 October 21, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Miguel Joaquin-Lopez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-112-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Miguel Joaquin-Lopez, federal prisoner # 17547-579, pleaded guilty to
illegal reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1).
The district court imposed a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months in
prison, which was above the advisory sentencing guidelines range of 15 to 21
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40262 Document: 00516064001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2021
No. 21-40262
months in prison. On appeal, Joaquin-Lopez asserts that his term of
imprisonment is substantively unreasonable as it is greater than necessary to
achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically asserts that the
extent of the variance is too high, particularly given that he has never
committed a crime of violence and the factors the district court considered
to impose an upward variance were already considered in the calculation of
his advisory guidelines range.
We review sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines, for
reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) and
review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46-47, 49-51
(2007). A sentence is not unreasonable merely because a different sentence
would also have been appropriate. Id. at 51.
The record demonstrates that the district court assessed the facts and
arguments of the parties and determined that a sentence within the advisory
guidelines range was insufficient to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in
§ 3553(a). The district court further adopted the presentence report and
considered the advisory sentencing guidelines range, the policy statements of
the Guidelines, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, specifically noting the
seriousness of the offense and the need for the sentence to protect the public,
provide just punishment for the offense, and afford adequate deterrence from
crime.
Joaquin-Lopez’s arguments on appeal constitute a disagreement with
the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. This disagreement does
not show error in connection with his sentence, nor does it show that the
sentence imposed was not reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States
v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 382 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d
321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, this court does not reweigh the
2
Case: 21-40262 Document: 00516064001 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/21/2021
No. 21-40262
§ 3553(a) factors and reexamine their relative import, nor will it reverse the
district court on the basis that this court could reasonably conclude that a
different sentence was proper. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States
v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 341, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2011). Joaquin-Lopez’s
sentence is supported by numerous § 3553(a) factors and is within the
statutory maximum. See § 1326 (a) (b)(1).
As to the extent of the variance, Joaquin-Lopez’s 120-month sentence
is 99 months greater than the top of his advisory guidelines range, and this
court has upheld similarly significant variances. See, e.g., United States
v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154-55 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming a sentence more
than double the high end of the guideline range); United States v. Key, 599
F.3d 469, 471-72, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming a sentence of 216 months
where the guidelines range was 46 to 57 months). Moreover, although the
extent of the variance is substantial, the district court provided a detailed
justification for imposing the variance. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d
714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015); McElwee, 646 F.3d at 344-45. Given the significant
deference that is due a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,
Joaquin-Lopez has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing his above-guidelines sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
50-53.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3