United States v. Manuel Lopez-Martinez
688 F. App'x 277
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Manuel Lopez-Martinez appealed a 48-month above-Guidelines sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The district court imposed an upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and alternatively a departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
- Lopez-Martinez argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.3 and 5K2.0 when departing.
- The government and district court relied on § 3553(a) factors (criminal history, deterrence, public protection) to justify an upward variance.
- The Fifth Circuit treated the sentence as a variance (not a departure) and reviewed whether the variance was supported by § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward sentence is procedurally unreasonable because of alleged misapplication of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and § 5K2.0 | Lopez-Martinez: district court relied on § 4A1.3/5K2.0 errors to justify an above-Guidelines sentence | Government/District Court: sentence was imposed as a variance under § 3553(a); § 4A1.3 and § 5K2.0 were not required to support the variance | Affirmed: appellate court pretermitted departure-claim error and upheld the variance as supported by § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether § 4A1.3 (criminal-history adjustment) controls variances | Lopez-Martinez: court should have adhered to § 4A1.3 or show the same sentence would have been imposed absent any § 4A1.3 error | Government: § 4A1.3 governs departures only; it is inapplicable to variances | Held: § 4A1.3 applies only to departures, not variances; no requirement to show the same sentence would have been imposed |
| Whether § 5K2.0 played a role in sentencing error | Lopez-Martinez: alleged § 5K2.0 misinterpretation contributed to procedural error | Government: § 5K2.0 was not referenced in PSR, district court, or by defendant; it played no role | Held: § 5K2.0 was not implicated and does not undermine the variance |
| Whether the variance was substantively reasonable under § 3553(a) | Lopez-Martinez: variance was excessive and unsupported if departure analysis faulty | Government: variance was supported by criminal history, deterrence, and public-protection objectives of § 3553(a) | Held: variance was supported by permissible § 3553(a) factors and is entitled to deference; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801 (5th Cir.) (Guidelines range is one factor; courts may find within-Guidelines insufficient)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (distinguishes departures from variances; two types of non-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir.) (procedural review principles for sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (§ 4A1.3 applies only to departures based on unrepresentative criminal history)
- United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir.) (addresses incorrect Guidelines calculations, not variance reliance on different factors)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir.) (variance review: supported if § 3553(a) factors justify it)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate deference to district court sentencing decisions; substantive-reasonableness standard)