Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50666/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50666-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Macario Hernandez-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50666

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR MACARIO HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-376-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Macario Hernandez-Lopez (Hernandez) appeals his 20-month 

within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for 

illegal reentry. Hernandez contends that his within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, he asserts that the 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 illegal reentry sentencing guideline should not be afforded a 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50666 Document: 00513414669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016
No. 15-50666

2

presumption of reasonableness because it is not empirically based, double 

counts certain predicate criminal convictions, overstates the seriousness of the

illegal reentry offense, and does not provide just punishment for the offense. 

Hernandez further argues that his sentence fails to reflect his personal history 

and characteristics, namely, that he is 30 years of age, he was brought to the 

United States when he was a child, he has a wife and three children, he has a 

child that suffers from cerebral palsy, and he returned to the United States to 

find work to support his family.

We need not decide this case under plain error review, because 

Hernandez’s sentence can be affirmed under an abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). When a sentence falls 

within a properly calculated guidelines range, we apply a rebuttable 

presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th 

Cir. 2009). 

Hernandez’s empirical basis challenge to the presumption of 

reasonableness is foreclosed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 

F. 3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). We have rejected the argument that a sentence 

imposed under § 2L1.2 is substantively unreasonable because certain predicate 

criminal convictions are double counted in the computation of a defendant’s 

guidelines range. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 

2009). We have also rejected the assertion that § 2L1.2 overstates the 

seriousness of illegal reentry. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 

204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, Hernandez’s contention that his sentence 

fails to reflect his personal history and characteristics is nothing more than a 

disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which 

is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. LopezVelasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50666 Document: 00513414669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016