Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel PEREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-18
Citations: 191 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 05-50635
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel PEREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel PEREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50635
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 18, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alex A. Melendez, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Perez-Lopez was convicted of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 24 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Perez-Lopez ehallenges his sentence, which was the result of an upward departure from the applicable guidelines sentencing range. He argues that the district court erred by not giving adequate notice of the departure and by not giving sufficient reasons to support its decision to depart. We review these arguments for plain error only due to Perez-Lopez's failure to raise appropriate objections in the district court. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.2006).
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court likely would have given Perez-Lopez a lesser sentence if he had received notice of the departure. Further, the extent of the departure is not excessive when compared with other departures that we have considered. Consequently, Perez-Lopez has not shown plain error in connection with his sentence. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 442-43. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.