United States v. Lopez-Alvarado, 24-30490

Edilberto Lopez-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the U.S. after a prior removal, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
The district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 36 months' imprisonment.
Lopez-Alvarado appealed, arguing his sentence was substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary.
On appeal, he challenged the district court's reliance on his criminal history and its treatment of mitigating circumstances.
The appeal was reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, as it was unclear if all specific arguments were preserved below.

Issue	Lopez-Alvarado's Argument	U.S. Argument	Held
Above-guidelines sentence was unreasonable	Reliance on criminal history already in guidelines	Sentence appropriate due to pattern	Proper to consider extensive criminal history
Consideration of mitigating circumstances	Court failed to give weight to mitigating factors	Court made individualized assessment	Court properly considered and weighed circumstances
Sentencing disparities	Sentence created unwarranted disparity	No evidence of disparity presented	No unwarranted sentencing disparity shown
Sentence greater than necessary	36 months exceeded what was necessary	Sentence justified by § 3553(a) factors	Sentence not greater than necessary under § 3553(a)

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (review of variance from guidelines)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (use of criminal history in upward variances)
United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468 (addresses sentencing disparities)