Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03253/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victoriano Tojil Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3253

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Victoriano Tojil Lopez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2007

Filed: July 23, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victoriano Tojil Lopez appeals the 57-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557. Lopez

argues on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not

specifically address the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to fully consider

what sentence would be “sufficient but not greater than necessary.” We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332294
-2-

We presume that a sentence within the advisory guideline range is reasonable.

United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005); see Rita v. United States,

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). In performing its analysis under section 3553(a), a

district court need not recite the statute or “categorically rehearse” each of the factors.

See United States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 163 (2006). The district court in this case had information before it on the

factors relevant to its section 3553(a) analysis, and specifically concluded that the

sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet statutory sentencing

goals. Further, the court discussed the problem of sentencing disparities among

districts with respect to “fast track” departures for immigration offenses, see U.S.S.G.

§ 5K3.1, and commented on Lopez’s criminal history, which the court found to be

serious. Lopez has not demonstrated that the court based its sentence on an “improper

or irrelevant factor” or neglected “to consider a relevant factor.” See Lincoln, 413

F.3d at 717. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision and conclude that

Lopez’s sentence is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332294