Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41050/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Lopez-Salgado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41050

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO LOPEZ-SALGADO, also known as Nicolas Vargas-Uriostegui,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-908-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Lopez-Salgado argues that the 30-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for 

illegal reentry after prior deportation was greater than necessary to meet the 

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based, and 

that the 12-level enhancement for his prior alien transportation conviction was 

 

* 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 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41050 Document: 00513444616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2016
No. 15-41050

2

too severe. He further asserts that his illegal reentry did not pose a danger to 

others. 

The within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338

(5th Cir. 2008). After considering Lopez-Salgado’s arguments, the district 

court determined that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was 

appropriate based on Lopez-Salgado’s repeated removals from, and reentries 

into, this country. Lopez-Salgado’s benign motive for returning to this country 

is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States 

v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). His argument 

regarding the staleness of his prior alien transportation conviction is likewise 

insufficient. See United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231, 234-35 (5th Cir. 

2011). Further, we have rejected the argument that § 2L1.2’s purported lack 

of an empirical basis necessarily renders a sentence under it unreasonable, see

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009), and that § 2L1.2 

overstates the seriousness of the offense. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 

513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Lopez-Salgado’s argument that the sentence is greater than necessary to 

meet the goals of § 3553(a) amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s 

balancing of the sentencing factors, and we will not reweigh those factors. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). He has failed to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186

(5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-41050 Document: 00513444616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2016