US v. Jose Lopez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cr-00455-PMD-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999876733]. [15-4791]

Appeal: 15-4791

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4791

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE RAMIREZ LOPEZ, a/k/a Jose Wilmer Valle-Vargas, a/k/a
Jose Wilmer Valles, a/k/a Jose Lopez, a/k/a Marvin
Ramirez-Valle,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00455-PMD-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2016

Decided:

July 1, 2016

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alicia
Vachira
Penn,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles,
United States Attorney, Dean H. Secor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4791

Doc: 32

Filed: 07/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jose Ramirez Lopez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012).
only

the

substantive

On appeal, Ramirez Lopez challenges

reasonableness

of

sentence imposed by the district court.

the

upward

variance

For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.
We

review

deferential

a

sentence

for

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
alleges

no

significant

reasonableness,
standard.”

applying

Gall

v.

“a

United

Where, as here, the defendant

procedural

error,

we

consider

the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence to determine whether
the

court

abused

its

discretion
factors

determining

supported

the

that

sentence

the

18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

imposed.

See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366

(4th Cir. 2011).

(2012)

in

it

In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines

range, we determine “whether the district court acted reasonably
both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and
with

respect

to

the

[G]uideline[s] range.”

extent

of

the

divergence

from

the

United States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d

236, 241 (4th Cir. 2006).
Ramirez
district

Lopez

court’s

argues

on

appeal

variance

was

that

the

unwarranted

extent

of

under

the
the

circumstances presented, noting that he had no prior convictions
2

Appeal: 15-4791

for

Doc: 32

violent

Filed: 07/01/2016

crimes

and

Pg: 3 of 4

contending

that

his

convictions

adequately considered in his Guidelines calculation.

were

He asserts

that the district court ignored the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and argues that the 24-month sentence
was greater than necessary to deter him from returning to the
United States.

These arguments are insufficient to demonstrate

that the court’s upward variance was unreasonable.
court

expressly

grounded

its

sentence

in

The district

numerous

§ 3553(a)

factors — including the need to protect the public, to deter
future

criminal

conduct,

to

provide

just

punishment

and

to

promote respect for the law, as well as Ramirez Lopez’s history
and the circumstances of the offense.

The court based Ramirez

Lopez’s upward variance on his five illegal entries into the
United States and multiple instances of criminal conduct while
present

in

the

country,

including

three

convictions

for

intoxicated driving, and a conviction for possession of cocaine.
While Ramirez Lopez and his counsel advised the court that
he was sincerely remorseful, had stopped drinking and resolved
not to reoffend, Ramirez Lopez’s alcohol abuse and pattern of
blatant

disrespect

for

the

law

amply

supported

the

court’s

determination that he would continue his persistent recidivism.
In short, Ramirez Lopez’s arguments represent mere disagreement
with the sentencing court’s exercise of its discretion and are
“insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”
3

See

Appeal: 15-4791

United

Doc: 32

States

Filed: 07/01/2016

v.

Howard,

773

Pg: 4 of 4

F.3d

519,

531

(4th

Cir.

2014)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4