* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40980

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO LOPEZ-GUEVARA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-381-1

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Lopez-Guevara (Lopez) appeals the 70-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for possession of more than five kilograms of

cocaine. Lopez argues that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable in

light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

586 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), because this

court’s prior precedent impermissibly restricted the district court’s discretion at

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40980

2

sentencing. He contends the district court labored under a misconception that

it could not sentence Lopez below the Guidelines in the absence of

“extraordinary circumstances” or based on the court’s disagreement with

guidelines policy. Nothing in the record suggests that the district court was

constrained by this court’s precedent from considering all of Lopez’s arguments

for a nonguideline sentence. Accordingly, there was no reversible plain error.

See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 31 F.3d 337, 2008 WL 2357364, at *2

(5th Cir. June 11, 2008)(No. 07-20715).

Lopez also contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively

unreasonable. He argues that the district court failed to consider the factors of

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentence

imposed. Lopez further contends that the district court ignored the mitigating

evidence he presented. Because Lopez did not object to his sentence in the

district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505

F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008).

The district court provided reasons for Lopez’s sentence, noting that the

amount of cocaine contributed to the seriousness of the offense. The court also

commented on Lopez’s use of cocaine and the connection between narcotics and

other crimes. The district court committed no significant procedural error. See

Gall, 128 St. Ct. at 597. 

Because the district courtimposed a sentence within a properly calculated

guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita

v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463 (2007). The court considered mitigating

evidence presented by Lopez and rejected his argument for a sentence below the

guidelines range. The court explained its reasons for rejecting Lopez’s argument

and imposing a sentence within the guidelines range. Lopez has failed to

demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
No. 07-40980

3