US v. Lopez-Miranda
Filing
OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge. Unpublished. [15-1308]
Case: 15-1308
Document: 00117141121
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
Entry ID: 6083409
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JOSÉ EDGARDO LÓPEZ-MIRANDA,
a/k/a José Miranda-López, a/k/a El Gordo,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
James S. Hewes on brief for appellant.
Mariana E. Bauzá Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney,
Chief, Appellate Division, Juan Carlos Reyes-Ramos, Assistant
United States Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
April 12, 2017
Case: 15-1308
Document: 00117141121
HOWARD,
challenges
sentence
the
for
Chief
Page: 2
Judge.
reasonableness
conspiracy
to
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
José
of
his
possess
Entry ID: 6083409
Edgardo
López-Miranda
200-month
incarcerative
cocaine
with
intent
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
to
After
careful consideration, we affirm.
I.
López was a member of a Puerto Rican drug-trafficking
organization between 2009 and 2010.
In October 2010, a federal
grand jury indicted López and thirty-three coconspirators for
various crimes arising out of their drug-trafficking activities.
Although López initially avoided apprehension, federal authorities
took him into custody in December 2012. López subsequently pleaded
guilty to conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
The parties stipulated that López was accountable for at
least five but less than fifteen kilograms of cocaine, which
established a Sentencing Guidelines Base Offense Level of 32.
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4) (effective Nov. 1, 2012).
See
Because López
accepted responsibility, the parties agreed that his Total Offense
Level was 29.
See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
The plea agreement indicated
that a total offense level of 29 corresponded to a sentencing range
of 87 to 108 months, although that would have been true only if
López were in criminal history category I.
See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5,
Pt. A (Sentencing Table) (effective Nov. 1, 2012).
- 2 -
Significantly,
Case: 15-1308
the
Document: 00117141121
parties
history.
made
no
Page: 3
stipulation
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
Entry ID: 6083409
regarding
criminal
López's
As the count of conviction carries a mandatory minimum
sentence of 120 months, the parties agreed jointly to recommend a
sentence of that length.
The district court subsequently accepted
López's guilty plea.
Prior to sentencing, the probation officer produced a
presentence investigation report ("PSR").
The PSR tracked the
plea agreement with respect to the Base Offense Level. It differed
from the plea agreement, however, by labeling López a career
offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). This increased López's offense
level to 37.
See id. § 4B1.1(b).
After a three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility, the Total Offense Level was 34.
According to the PSR, López's criminal history category was VI.
See id.
All told, López's Guidelines Sentencing Range was 262-
327 months.
See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table).
López's criminal history includes: a 1995 conviction for
felony domestic violence; a 2004 conviction for felony aggravated
assault; and 2013 convictions for both child abuse and felony
omission in the prevention of a crime.
With respect to the last
of these, López was found to have placed the body of his thenpartner's infant son, sealed in a trash bag, in a freezer after
the boy's mother asphyxiated the child.
At the sentencing hearing, López argued that the PSR
calculations overrepresented his criminal history and asked to be
- 3 -
Case: 15-1308
Document: 00117141121
Page: 4
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
Entry ID: 6083409
sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment, the statutory minimum.
Although the sentencing court considered López's violent past a
significant aggravating factor, it was sympathetic to the argument
that the career offender Guidelines overrepresented his criminal
history.
After considering the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the judge imposed an incarcerative sentence of
200 months.
This appeal timely followed.
II.
On appeal, López argues that his "200 month sentence is
unreasonable
and
greater
[§ 3553(a)] factors."
than
necessary
to
effectuate
the
Claims of sentencing error trigger a two-
step inquiry:
"we first determine whether the sentence imposed is
procedurally
reasonable
and
substantively reasonable."
588, 590 (1st Cir. 2011).
then
determine
whether
it
is
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d
Here, López objects only to the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for abuse of discretion, "taking into account the totality of the
circumstances."
(1st Cir. 2013).
United States v. Zavala-Martí, 715 F.3d 44, 50
Although López did not object below, we will
assume arguendo that our review is for abuse of discretion.
- 4 -
Cf.
Case: 15-1308
Document: 00117141121
Page: 5
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
Entry ID: 6083409
United States v. Nuñez, 840 F.3d 1, 6–7 (1st Cir. 2016) (assuming
without deciding that review is for abuse of discretion).
The sentencing court made specific, detailed findings
with respect to the relevant § 3553(a) factors and adequately
explained its sentence.
See United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado,
791 F.3d 193, 201 (1st Cir. 2015).
Indeed, as the sentencing
transcript makes clear, the judge thoughtfully considered and
discussed these factors with both the defendant and his counsel at
some length.
Thus, López's "argument amounts to a disagreement
with the district court's weighing of the different sentencing
factors," and we find no abuse of the court's broad discretion.
Cf. id. at 200 (finding no plain error when defendant disagreed
with the sentencing court's weighing of factors).
Moreover, López's argument that there is an unwarranted
disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his coconspirators
does
not
succeed
because
López
conspirators are not "identically situated."
and
his
co-
United States v.
Rivera-González, 626 F.3d 639, 648 (1st Cir. 2010). In fact, López
and his co-defendants are not so much as similarly situated.
They
were sentenced by different judges. See id. (stating that there
"may
be
a
reason
for
concern"
if
two
identically
situated
defendants "receive different sentences from the same judge").
Further, while some of López's co-defendants cooperated with the
government, López himself did not, see United States v. Rossignol,
- 5 -
Case: 15-1308
Document: 00117141121
Page: 6
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
Entry ID: 6083409
780 F.3d 475, 478 (1st Cir. 2015) (distinguishing between codefendants who cooperate and those who do not), and López's defense
counsel stated at sentencing that he was "pretty sure" López's codefendants were not career offenders, see Rivera-González, 626
F.3d at 648 (differentiating defendants based on their criminal
history).
Under
the
circumstances,
imposition
of
a
200-month
sentence was not substantively unreasonable.1
III.
We affirm the district court's sentence.
1
Although we perceive no basis for disturbing the
district court's incarcerative sentence, López does point out some
apparent discrepancies between the magistrate-judge's Report and
Recommendation on Plea of Guilty and the change-of-plea hearing
transcript. Nevertheless, because López makes no claim on appeal
that these omissions affected his substantial rights, we need not
examine them further. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542
U.S. 74, 76 (2004) ("[W]e hold that a defendant [raising an
unpreserved Rule 11 error on appeal] is obliged to show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have
entered the plea."). He has waived any argument that the changeof-plea colloquy was inadequate. See United States v. Zannino, 895
F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
- 6 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?