United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3072

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Armando Lopez-Hernandez,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: May 31, 2016

 Filed: August 9, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Armando Lopez-Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United

States after a prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district
court1

 sentenced Lopez-Hernandez to 57 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, LopezHernandez challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and we affirm.

On August 15, 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents found

Lopez-Hernandez at a detention center in Minneapolis, where he was in custody after

an arrest for domestic assault. The agents determined that Lopez-Hernandez was a

native and citizen of Mexico and that he had no lawful status in the United States. 

Lopez-Hernandez ultimately pleaded guilty to the illegal reentry charge pursuant to

a plea agreement in which he stipulated that the applicable advisory sentencing range

was 57 to 71 months in prison.

At sentencing, Lopez-Hernandez asserted that he reentered illegally because his

daughter was in a serious accident, argued that his reason for reentering was a

mitigating circumstance, and requested a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment. The

district court was not persuaded and imposed a term of 57 months, at the bottom of

the advisory range.

On appeal, Lopez-Hernandez argues that his sentence is greater than necessary

because the court did not give sufficient weight to the reason for his reentry and the

nonviolent nature of his offense. He asserts that the district court’s silence on these

points shows that the court did not adequately weigh his concerns. We review the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), and we presume that a

sentence imposed within the advisory guideline range is reasonable. United States v.

Paulino-Duarte, 670 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2012); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.

338, 347 (2007).

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

-2-
The district court’s selection of a term of 57 months’ imprisonment was not

unreasonable. The court heard and considered Lopez-Hernandez’s statement that he

entered the United States illegally in 2014 because of his injured daughter. See United

States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 893-94 (8th Cir. 2009). But while Lopez-Hernandez

cited his daughter’s severe injuries from an accident as his reason for reentry, he

admitted that he remained in the United States even after his daughter was released

from the hospital and her condition improved. Indeed, Lopez-Hernandez

acknowledged that he moved from Washington State, where his daughter was

hospitalized, to Minnesota and obtained a job there after she recovered. Likewise,

although Lopez-Hernandez’s crime was nonviolent, his criminal history showed that

he had been previously deported three times and committed the same offense of illegal

reentry once before.

The district court has wide discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and may assign some factors greater weight than others in imposing an

appropriate sentence. See United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471, 476 (8th Cir.

2011). And the district court is not required to provide a “mechanical recitation” of

the § 3553(a) factors, so long as it actually considered them. United States v. Walking

Eagle, 553 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2009). In view of Lopez-Hernandez’s offense

conduct and history, we see no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to sentence

him at the bottom of the advisory range.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-