Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50800/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnoldo Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50797

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARNOLDO LOUIS LOPEZ, also known as “Looney”, also known as Arnoldo 

Lopez, also known as Arnoldo L. Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

_______________________________________________________________________

CONSOLIDATED WITH No. 14-50800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARNOLDO LOPEZ, also known as Arnoldo Louis Lopez, also known as Looney, 

also known as Arnoldo L. Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-860

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50800 Document: 00513245256 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
No. 14-50797 c/w No. 14-50800

2

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, Arnoldo Louis Lopez challenges his guiltyplea convictions and sentences for possessing with the intent to distribute 

cocaine base and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

offense. He argues that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary; he 

was subject to prosecutorial misconduct at his sentencing hearing; and the 

sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. 

Lopez also challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

convictions of conspiring to make, and actually making, false statements on 

records of a licensed federal firearms dealer. In that case, he again contends 

that he was subject to prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing hearing.

Lopez did not raise any these arguments in the district court. This court

therefore will review his claims for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Lopez has not established reversible plain error with regard to his 

argument that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary. He correctly 

points out that the district court erred by failing to advise him that his 

statements under oath could be used against him in a prosecution for perjury. 

See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(A). But Lopez has not established a reasonable 

probability that such a warning would have resulted in him not pleading 

guilty. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). 

The Government maintains that we should not consider Lopez’s 

challenges to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in the drug case

 

* 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: 14-50800 Document: 00513245256 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
No. 14-50797 c/w No. 14-50800

3

because Lopez waived, as part of his plea agreement, his right to challenge the 

sentence. A review of the record confirms that Lopez’s guilty plea and waiver 

of appeal were knowing and voluntary and should be enforced. See United 

States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Portillo, 

18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we will not consider the 

reasonableness challenge.

Lopez’s appeal waiver contains an exception for claims of prosecutorial 

misconduct. Consequently, we will consider Lopez’s claims in both cases that, 

at sentencing, the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony concerning, and 

commented on, Lopez’s association with the Zeta cartel. Lopez has not, 

however, established that the prosecutor’s actions constituted error, plain or 

otherwise. See United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 358 (5th Cir. 2007). 

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-50800 Document: 00513245256 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2015