United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-50368

consolidated with

No. 20-50386

Summary Calendar

 

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Felix Lopez-Gonzalez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-899-1

USDC No. 4:19-CR-369-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Felix Lopez-Gonzalez appeals his within-guidelines prison sentence 

of 16 months, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50368 Document: 00515670009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 20-50368

c/w No. 20-50386

2

conviction of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Raising arguments discussed below, he contends that the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. Additionally, Lopez-Gonzalez appeals a 

separate 10-month prison sentence imposed following revocation of a 

supervised release term. As to this sentence, his arguments focus on the

aggregate 26-month prison term he must serve in light of the district court’s 

decision to impose the 10-month sentence consecutively to the 16-month 

sentence.

When the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable on 

appeal. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To rebut 

the presumption, Lopez-Gonzalez must show “that the sentence does not 

account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant 

weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of 

judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id.

First, Lopez-Gonzalez argues that the presumption should not apply 

because the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, lacks an empirical 

basis. As he correctly concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See United States v. 

Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, we have previously 

rejected Lopez-Gonzalez’s next arguments that a within-guidelines sentence 

is unreasonable because illegal reentry is a nonviolent trespass offense, see 

United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008), and 

because § 2L1.2 effectively double counts prior convictions, see Duarte, 569 

F.3d at 529-31.

Lopez-Gonzalez has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. 

See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. His benign motives for returning to this country

are insufficient. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 

Case: 20-50368 Document: 00515670009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 20-50368

c/w No. 20-50386

3

(5th Cir. 2008). The district court considered Lopez-Gonzalez’s arguments 

in favor of a lower sentence and was in the best position to find facts and judge 

their importance. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 

(5th Cir. 2008). The court’s decision is entitled to deference. See id.

Insofar as Lopez-Gonzalez challenges the district court’s imposition 

of consecutive sentences, his challenge is unavailing. Because his 10-month 

revocation sentence falls within the applicable advisory range and is 

consistent with the mandate of U.S.S.G § 7B1.3(f), p.s., it is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 

F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). Lopez-Gonzalez makes no effort to rebut 

the presumption. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50368 Document: 00515670009 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2020