USA v. Erick Lopez-Mendez, No. 17-50215 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-50215 Document: 00514416841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50215 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 5, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERICK ROLANDO LOPEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-1810-1 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Erick Rolando Lopez-Mendez challenges his 77-month within-guidelines sentence for being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation. The district court heard Lopez-Mendez’s arguments for a lower sentence but determined that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. We have rejected the argument that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to sentences pursuant to the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-50215 Document: 00514416841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 No. 17-50215 § 2L1.2, because the Guideline lacks an empirical basis, United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009), and we have also rejected the argument that § 2L1.2 renders a sentence unreasonable by doublecounting a defendant’s criminal history, United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Although Lopez-Mendez argues that he returned to the United States because he had lived in this country since age 13 and because he wanted to see his family, this is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, he has failed to show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 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.