In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 05-2432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RICHARDINI LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 04 CR 568—David H. Coar, Judge.

____________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 2005—DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2005

____________

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and SYKES,

Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Chief Judge. On January 25, 2005, Richardini

Lopez pled guilty to bank robbery and to carrying and

brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime

of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the government dropped charges of carjacking and one count of

brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of

violence, although Lopez stipulated to having committed

those offenses. On April 20, 2005, the district court sentenced Lopez to 168 months imprisonment for bank robbery

and a consecutive sentence of 84 months imprisonment for

carrying and brandishing a weapon during a bank robbery,
2 No. 05-2432

a total sentence of 21 years. Lopez now appeals that

sentence. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. Background

On June 10, 2004, Lopez approached Victim A. He falsely

identified himself as a police officer. When Victim A stated

he did not believe Lopez, Lopez displayed a black .25 caliber

Berreta that he had received from his 16-year-old nephew

(who was also present and waiting in Lopez’s car during the

carjacking) and stated, “Give me the keys.” Victim A began

to yell, “carjacking, carjacking.” In response, Lopez punched

him in the mouth and nose, resulting in Victim A falling

backwards and injuring his head on the curb. While Victim

A lay bleeding, Lopez grabbed his keys and took his car.

Lopez drove to the TCF Bank. While his nephew remained by the entrance as a lookout, Lopez approached

the tellers. He stated, “[P]ut the money in the bag. Hurry

up, put the money in the bag. Give me all of it.” While

making these statements, Lopez was pointing a .25 caliber

Beretta handgun at the first teller’s chest. Lopez repeated

this process with a second teller. The robbery netted

approximately $5,856.48 from the bank. Later that day, the

FBI arrested Lopez, at which time he confessed to the

carjacking and bank robbery. He also confessed to carrying and brandishing a gun during both offenses.

The government indicted Lopez on four separate counts.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lopez pled guilty to Count

Three (bank robbery) and Count Four (brandishing a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence). In

addition, Lopez stipulated to having committed Count One

(carjacking) and Count Two (brandishing a firearm during

and in relation to a crime of violence). This plea agreement

allowed Lopez to avoid 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C), which

would have required a minimum term of 25 years for

having committed two crimes involving the use of a firearm.
No. 05-2432 3

The plea agreement, which the defendant signed, contained a preliminary sentencing calculation. The agreed

upon calculation contained a total offense level of 26 and a

criminal history category of VI, yielding a sentencing range

of 120-150 months imprisonment on Count Three. In

addition, the plea agreement stated, “At the time of sentencing, both parties will recommend a sentence within the

applicable advisory Guideline range as to Count Three and

a sentence of seven years as to Count Four to be imposed

consecutive to the sentence on Count Three.”

The plea agreement contained language explicitly noting that the Probation Department and the Court would

make their own guideline calculations and that “the validity

of [the] Plea Agreement is not contingent upon the Probation Department’s or the Court’s concurrence with the

[calculations in the agreement].”

The presentence report found several errors in the plea

agreement’s guideline calculation. As a result, both the

presentence report and the district court found the appropriate offense level to be 30, not 26. This yielded a

sentence of 168-210 months on Count Three.

At the April 20, 2005, sentencing hearing, the district

court allowed each party an opportunity to object to the

sentencing report. Neither party did. The district court

reviewed the calculation differences between the sentencing

report and plea agreement. Lopez told the court

he understood the differences. Lopez and his lawyer

both accepted the validity of the sentencing report.

The district court accepted the presentence report and

sentenced the defendant to the lowest sentence within the

sentencing guidelines, 168 months for Count Three plus

a mandatory consecutive term of 84 months for Count Four;

this yielded a total sentence of 252 months or 21 years.

During sentencing, the district court commented that Lopez

did not “belong on the scrap heap” due to his cooperation,
4 No. 05-2432

the related nature of the offenses, his drug problem, and his

supportive family, but that the nature of his crimes “just

cr[ies] out for a severe punishment.”

II. Discussion

In reviewing a district court sentence, this Court must

evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district court

was reasonable. United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 767

(2005). “[A]ny sentence that is properly calculated under

the Guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of

reasonableness.” United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606,

608 (7th Cir. 2005). Appellate courts are guided by the

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when deciding whether a

particular sentence is reasonable. Id. (citing Booker, 125

S.Ct. at 766).

Provided a district court considers the factors in section

3553(a) and calculates the guideline range accurately, it

is unnecessary to discuss every section 3553(a) factor

individually. See United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729

(7th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. George, 403 F.3d

470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is enough to calculate the

range accurately and explain why (if the sentence lies

outside it) this defendant deserves more or less.”).

In this case, the district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range. The sentencing guideline range in the presentence report was correct, and the sentencing guideline calculation in the plea

agreement was incorrect.

Although Lopez argues that his sentence fails to account

for the lower sentence originally calculated in the plea

agreement, the agreement’s guideline calculation was

always preliminary. The plea agreement specifically stated

that it would be unaffected by “corrections [to the guideline

calculation], and the defendant shall not have a right to
No. 05-2432 5

withdraw his plea on the basis of such corrections.” A

correction to a preliminary guideline calculation is not a

valid factor for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The district court adequately discussed the factors

included in section 3553(a). The district court discussed the

nature of the offense, the characteristics of the defendant,

the need to impose a sentence that recognizes

the seriousness of the offense, and the need for the defendant to receive drug treatment. The district court also

discussed the range of sentences available. While this

discussion did not specifically reference every factor

named in section 3553(a), such a checklist is unnecessary.

Dean, 414 F.3dat 729.

Lopez argues that his sentence is excessive because a

sentence within the guideline range found in the original

plea agreement would have been sufficient to achieve the

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). It is not relevant to this

Court’s review whether the sentence found in the plea

agreement calculation would also have been reasonable.

The role of this Court is not to choose between possible

sentences, but rather to review the reasonableness of the

sentence imposed by the district court. The sentence

imposed in this case was within the advisory range of the

sentencing guidelines, based upon the factors in section

3553(a), and reflects significant consideration of the competing goals of sentencing. After a thorough discussion of

the sentencing factors, the district court found that the

guidelines captured the appropriate penalty in this case. By

sentencing Lopez to the lowest sentence within the guideline range, the district court properly balanced its desire to

avoid unreasonably prolonged incarceration, while recognizing the seriousness of the offenses committed. The sentence

imposed by the district court was reasonable.
6 No. 05-2432

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the sentence

of the district court.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—12-6-05