United States v. Lopez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 5, 2009
No. 08-50009
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:07-CR-2110-ALL
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Salvador Lopez, Jr., was convicted of one count of importing 100 kilograms
or more of marijuana into the United States and one count of possessing 100
kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute. The district court
sentenced him to serve 120 months in prison and a 10 year term of supervised
release. Lopez challenges his term of supervised release in this appeal. He
argues that his term of supervised release is unreasonable because it is greater
than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-50009
We review this issue for plain error only due to Lopez’s failure to present
it to the district court. See United States v. Allison, 447 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir.
2006). To show plain error, Lopez must show a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 129
S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the
discretion to correct the error but will do so only if the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.Our review of the record shows that Lopez has not met this standard. The
10 year supervised release term imposed by the district court was within both
the statutory and applicable guideline ranges. Further, the district court’s
comments at sentencing show that it considered the factors given in § 3553(a)
when choosing this term. Lopez has not shown plain error with respect to the
district court’s imposition of a 10 year term of supervised release. See Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2