USA v. Joel Lopez, No. 17-20227 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-20227 Document: 00514378150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-20227 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 8, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOEL FABRICIO LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant Cons. w/No. 17-20237 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOEL FABRICIO LOPEZ, also known as Loco, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-558-1 USDC No. 4:10-CR-839-5 Case: 17-20227 Document: 00514378150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2018 No. 17-20227 c/w No. 17-20237 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this consolidated appeal, Joel Fabricio Lopez challenges the sentences imposed for his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States and the revocation of his supervised release. He asserts that the district court committed reversible plain error by sentencing him in those cases without ordering a presentence report (PSR). To the extent Lopez contends that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(A) required the preparation of a new or additional PSR in his revocation case, he has not demonstrated clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 68-69 & n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). Neither has Lopez shown that the absence of a PSR for his new illegal-reentry case affected his substantial rights with respect to that case or his revocation case. The information in the record was sufficient to allow the district court to meaningfully consider the relevant sentencing factors, and Lopez has not shown that the guidelines ranges recognized by the district court for those cases were erroneous. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii). We decline to exercise our discretion in both cases under the fourth prong of plain error review. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2
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.
