IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51275

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EVERARDO LOPEZ-PORCAYO, also known as Everado Lopez, also known as 

Everardo Porcayo, also known as Everardo Porcayo-Lopez, also known as 

Borracho,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-310

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Everardo Lopez-Porcayo (Lopez) appeals the 41-month, within 

guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being 

unlawfully present in the United States after having been previously removed. 

He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater 

than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51275 Document: 00513200726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2015
No. 14-51275

2

He contends that the application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 resulted in an 

unreasonable sentence. He also contends that the district court failed to take 

into account the fact that he has lived in the United States since he was 12 

years old and faces a violent and uncertain future if removed from the United 

States, that he has changed his life and become a devoted family man, that his 

motive for returning to the United States was to be with his family, and that 

the district court may have been influenced by information in the presentence 

report indicating that he was in a gang.

We review sentences for reasonableness in light of the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-20 (5th Cir. 

2005). Our review of the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751-53 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Although Lopez did not present to the district court all of the 

arguments he raises on appeal, we need not determine whether plain error 

review applies because his arguments fail under the abuse-of-discretion 

standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly 

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. United 

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

Lopez 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.

Lopez’s arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that the district court 

failed to account for a sentencing factor that should have been given significant 

weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or that the 

sentence imposed represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the 

 Case: 14-51275 Document: 00513200726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2015
No. 14-51275

3

sentencing factors. See id. In essence, Lopez’s arguments amount to a mere 

dissatisfaction with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, and 

such is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches 

to his within guidelines sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 

(5th Cir. 2010).

We AFFIRM.

 Case: 14-51275 Document: 00513200726 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2015