NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0335n.06

Case No. 15

- 3810

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,

Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v.

JOSE LOPEZ

- RODRIGUEZ
,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER
, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

SILER , Circuit Judge. Defendant Jose Lopez

- Rodriguez (“Lopez”) appeals the district
court’s application of a sixteen

- level sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines on the
grounds that it was improperly applied to him, and that it produces a substantively unreasonable
sentence in every case. For the following reaso ns, we AFFIRM

.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lopez , a Mexican citizen, was convicted in a Pennsylvania state court of four counts
related to drug trafficking and was sentenced to several years in state prison. Although he was
deported following his release from state custody in 2013, he was arrested in Columbus, Ohio,
less than two year s later. Subsequently he pled guilty to the charge of illegal reentry of an alien
previously convicted of a felony

.Case No. 15

- 3810
, United States v. Lopez

- Rodriguez

- 2

- The presentence report (“PSR”) set Lopez ’s bas e offense level at 8, then increased the

base of fense level by 16 pursuant to USS G § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because his 2011 Pennsylvania
conviction was a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months.

With the three

- level reduction fo r a timely acceptance of responsibility, his total offense level
was 21. Given his criminal history category of II, the offense level corresponded to a G uideline
imprisonment range of 41 to 51 months.
At sentencing, Lopez o b

j e c te d t o t h e sixteen

- l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t and claimed that h e was

no t g u i l t y o f t h e c h a r g e s o f w h ich h e h ad b ee n c o n vi c te d in P e nn s y lva n ia. When t h e di s t r i ct c o u rt

stated that “ what y o u ’ r e m o s t ly mad ab o u t is t h a t s o m e j u d g e in A l l e g h e n y C o unt y,

P e nn sylva n i a , f

o u n d y o u g u i l t y o f s o m e t h i n g y o u d o n ’ t b e l i e v e y o u w e r e g u il t y o f
, ” Lopez

a g r e e d.

T h e di s t ri c t c o u rt o v e rr u l e d Lopez ’s o b je c t i o n , e xplai n i n g th at he s h o u ld h a v e appealed

h is s t a t e ca s e and t h at h e c o u ld no t revisit t h e valid i t y o f t h e pr i o r c o n vi c t i o n a t h is f e d e ral

s e n te n ci n g. U l t im a t e ly
, t h e di s t r i ct c o u rt va r ied d o w n ward f r o m th e G u id e li n e s ra n g e and

s e n te n c e d Lopez t o 36 m o n t hs ’ imprisonment , fi v e m o n t h s b e l o w the b o tt o m o f h is G u id e li n e

l e v e l. When asked i f e i t h e r s i d e h ad a n y o b j e c t i o n t o t h e s e nt e n ce, t h e pa r t i e s stated t h a t t h e y did

no t

.
DISCUSSION

I. Lopez ’s As

- Applied Challenge to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
Lopez first argues that “while the district court ultimately imposed a below

- guidelines

sentence

. . . . [t]he district court failed to adequately consider the history and characteristics of
the offender, and in particular the characteristics of the offender’s Pennsylvania felony offenses,”
which “resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence.” We “consider the substantiveCase No. 15

- 3810
, United States v. Lopez

- Rodriguez

- 3

- reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” Gall v. United

States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 1 Moreover, Lopez bears the weighty burden of rebutting the
sentence’s presumptive reasonableness

. See Un ited States v. Curry , 536 F.3d 571, 573 (6th Cir.

2008) (citing Gall , 552 U.S. at 51; Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338 (2007) )

.
The district court did not abuse its discretion

. Because Lopez had p r e v i o u sly s e r v e d time

in p ri s o n for a d r u g t raff

i c k i n g conviction
, 2 the p r o b a t i on officer r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t Lopez s h o u l d

r e c e i v e a sixteen

- l e v e l enh a n c e m e n t

. Moreover, Lopez even “ concedes that his Pennsylvania
drug conviction and sentence qualified for this enhancement .”
Lopez ’s claim that t h e di s t r i ct c o u r t “ r e f us [ e d] t o l oo k a t t h e circ u m s t a n c e s” o f his pr i o r

c o n v i c t i o n

— and thus “ fail[ed] to consider p e r t i n e n t 3 553 f

ac t o r s ”

— lacks merit. In fact, he did
not assert particular mi t i ga t i n g circ u m s t a n c e s surrounding his prior offenses; rather, he
essentially claimed that h e was i nno c e n t of the c ri m e s f o r w h ich h e was c o n vi c t e d , and that he
was at most a minor participant undeserving of the charges that were brought against him

.
A l t h o u gh t h e c o u rt may c o n sid e r c i rc u ms t a n c e s leading up to a c ri m e , n o t h i n g

— i n
§ 3 553(a) or elsewhere

— obligates a court to pass judgment on w h et h e r a previous c o n vi c t i o n

was valid

. Aside from the normal “channels of direct or collateral review
, ” d e f e n da n ts g e ne ral l y

m ay n o t a tt a ck t h e va l idi t y o f a pr i o r c o n vi c t i o n , e x c e pt o n t h e gr o un d t h at i t was “ o b t ai n e d in

1 T he Government asserts that Lopez ’s argument should be considered as a procedural unreasonableness claim, given that the Supreme Court in Gall stated that “failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors” and “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence” are both procedural errors. 552 U. S. at 51. And because Lopez “did not mention the alleged error in response to the district court’s invitation of objections after announcing its sentence,” the Government reasons, “the plain error standard governs.” Since Lopez clearly cannot show that the district court abused its discretion, however, we need not consider the even stricter plain error standard.

2 Lopez ’s previous Pennsylvania state c o n vi c t i o n s were for being a n empl o y e e of a

co rr u pt orga n i z a t i o n , for c o ns piracy, a n d for d e li v e r y / p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i nt e n t t o d e l i v e r a
c o n t r o l l ed s u b s t a n c e

.Case No. 15

- 3810
, United States v. Lopez

- Rodriguez

- 4

- v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t t o c o un s e l

. ” Da n iels v

. Un i t ed S t a t e s , 532 U. S . 3 7 4, 3 8 2 ( 2 001 ) . Thus, “a
prior conviction [that] has not been set aside on direct or collateral review

. . . is presumptively
valid and may be used to enhance [a] federal sentence.” Id.
Lopez ’s reliance on Un i t ed S t a t es v

. B risse t t , 3 75 F. A pp ’ x 473 ( 6 t h C i r . 2010 )
, does not

avail him

. B r i s s e t t concerned i ll e g al r ee n t ry o f a r e m o v e d a l i e n w h o c lai m e d t h a t “because t h e

e nh a n c e m e n t [ un d er U SSG § 2 L1

. 2 ] was ‘b a s e d o n l o n g

- pa s t p ri o r f e l o n i es c o m m i t te d [w h i le h e ]

was f l e e i n g f o r h is li f e , ’ t h e di s t ri c t c o u r

t w as r e q u i r e d t o t e mp e r t h e e nh a n c e m e n t ’ s impa c t

t h r o u gh a d o w n w ard varia n c e

. ” I d

. at 4 77. Even though this court recognized that “ the
sympathetic circumstances surrounding a defendant ’ s underlying conviction might conceivably
require mitigation of an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b) ,” the defendant in B ris set t failed to

o v e r c o me t h e p r e su mp t i o n o f r e a s o n ab l e n e s s that accompanied his sentence

. I d. at 478. Such a
conclusion applies even more forcefully for Lopez and his presumptively valid prior conviction in

the instant case, as he does not have similar mitigating circumstances or stale convictions in his
favor. Lopez has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in applying (and
varying below) a sixteen

- level enhancement that he conceded was technically appropriate.

Because th e di s t ri c t c o u rt sufficiently c o n si d e r e d Lopez ’s § 3 5 5 3(a) arg u m e n t s a n d
correctly refused t o entertain the argument regarding Lopez’s alleged innocence of his prior

conviction c o n vi c t i o ns , the s e nten ce is not un r e a s o n ab l e o n these grounds

.
II. Lopez ’s Facial Challenge to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)
Lopez ’s other claim is a facial challenge t h a t “ t h [is] C o u rt sh o u ld r u l e t h at [ th e sixteen

l e v e l e nh a n c e m e n t ] d o e s no t r esu lt in r e a s o n ab l e s e nt e n c e s , e v e n in t ypical ca s e s. ” Since this

claim was n o t r a i s e d at the sentencing
, Lopez bears the even greater burden of establishing thatCase No. 15

- 3810
, United States v. Lopez

- Rodriguez

- 5

- the district court committed plain e rr o r in its b e l ow

- G u id e li n e s s e nt e n c e. See United States v.

Rogers , 769 F.3d 372, 384 (6th Cir. 2014)

. According to the district court, “ [i]n my mi n d, [the sixteen

- level enhancement] is to o

h arsh a p e n al t y

. . . . I t h i nk t h e g u i d e li n e s a r e a l i t t le to o h ar s h i n t h is r e gar d

. ” Thus, t h e di s t r i ct

c o u rt stated
, “ I ’m wil l i n g t o gi v e y o u a l i t t l e br e a k

. Y o u ’re no t g o i n g t o t h i n k i t ’s m u ch o f a

b r e a k

. I th i n k i t ’s a big br e a k

. ” T h e c o u r t t h e n proceeded to give Lopez a 36 m o nt h s e nt e n c e

—

f ive m o n t h s b e l o w t h e G u id e li n e ra n g e of 4 1

– 51 m o n t h s

. Perhaps latching onto the district court’s feelings on this subject, Lopez raises a number of
policy arguments in his attempt to paint the provision in question as a flawed G uideline. However,

he has not provided a single authority stating t h at t h e d i s t r ict c o u rt was obligated t o vary

d o w n ward e v e n f

u r th e r t h an i t d id ba s e d o n his p o li c y di s ag r ee m e n t w i t h § 2L 1

. 2

. And as we

have previously stated, “ t h e fa c t t h a t a di s t ri c t c o u rt may di s a gr e e w i t h a G u id e li ne f o r p o licy

r e a s o n s a n d may r e

j e c t t h e G u id e li n e s ra n g e b e ca u se o f t h at di s ag r ee m e n t d oe s no t m e an t h a t t h e

c o u r t m u st d isag r e e w i t h t h at G u id e li n e o r t h a t i t m u st r e j e c t t h e G u id e li n e s ra n ge if i t di s ag r ee s

. ”

Un i t ed S t a t es v

. B r o o k

s , 628 F

. 3d 7 9 1, 8 0 0 ( 6 t h C i r. 2 0 11).

AFFIRMED.