United States v. Lopez
693 F. App'x 779
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Lopez pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); plea contemplated a Guidelines range of 70–87 months (offense level 21, CHC V) and government agreed to recommend low end.
- Probation's presentence report applied a 2-level stolen-weapon enhancement (raising offense level to 23) and calculated criminal history category VI, producing a Guidelines range of 92–115 months.
- Lopez objected to the stolen-weapon enhancement and sought a one-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b); he also moved for a downward variance to 63 months.
- The district court sustained Lopez’s enhancement objection and granted the one-level criminal-history departure, restoring the 70–87 month Guidelines range.
- After considering § 3553(a) factors (including Lopez’s troubled background, acceptance of responsibility, offense seriousness, and prior probation noncompliance), the court sentenced Lopez to 78 months (mid-range).
- Lopez appealed, arguing his 78-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court gave insufficient weight to his personal history and too much weight to his criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly resolved Guidelines calculations (stolen-weapon enhancement and criminal-history departure) | N/A (government agreed to low-end recommendation; probation sought enhancement) | Lopez argued enhancement was improper and sought downward departure | District court sustained Lopez’s objection to the stolen-weapon enhancement and granted the § 4A1.3(b) downward departure, restoring the parties’ anticipated Guidelines range |
| Whether the 78-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a) | Government: recommended 70 months and defended a within-Guidelines sentence as reasonable | Lopez: court mis-weighed § 3553(a) factors, gave too little weight to his troubled background and mitigating circumstances and too much to his criminal history; sought a lower variance | Court of Appeals: affirmed — no abuse of discretion; district court considered relevant factors and its balance was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir.) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness: abuse of discretion)
- United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir.) (appellate deference where a range of rationally available sentencing outcomes exist)
- United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.) (appellate court will not reweigh § 3553(a) factors de novo when district court’s balancing is not arbitrary)