US v. Arkadio Olivares-Lopez, No. 12-4591 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4591 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARKADIO DEANGEL OLIVARES-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00001-D-1) Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013 Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arkadio Deangel Olivares-Lopez pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation § 841(a)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). sentenced him Olivares-Lopez unreasonable. to 162 contends months of that his of 21 U.S.C. The district court imprisonment. sentence is On appeal, substantively For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on explain clearly the chosen erroneous facts, sentence. or Gall, failing 552 U.S. to adequately at 51. When considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we take into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 2 551 U.S. 338, 346 56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). Here, calculated Olivares-Lopez advisory was Guidelines sentenced range to properly The sentence. a district court listened to the arguments of counsel and to Olivares-Lopez himself, and expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court adequately explained its decision to sentence OlivaresLopez within his advisory sentencing range of 135-168 months, and we find reasonableness no reason on not to Accordingly, we affirm. the presumption See appeal. apply Go, 517 F.3d at of 218. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
