Court Opinion

ID: 9386490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 18:00:42.985669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.858971
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                  April 11, 2023
                                   No. 22-50758                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Renee Huerta Lopez,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:21-CR-360-2
                  ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Renee Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute, and to distribute, 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine.
The district court sentenced her to the guideline maximum of 293 months.
She now appeals her sentence.
      Lopez argues that her sentence was unreasonable because the district

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
                                  No. 22-50758

court failed to provide sufficient explanation for her sentence as required un-
der 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). While Lopez characterizes her argument as a chal-
lenge to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence, her argument con-
stitutes a procedural objection. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564
F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). During the sentencing hearing, Lopez did not
object to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation. Thus, her argu-
ment is subject to plain error review. Id. at 361; see also United States v. Coto-
Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585–86 (5th Cir. 2021).
       We apply the familiar four-part test to assess plain error. See Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Assuming arguendo that Lopez
could meet the first two conditions, she cannot satisfy the third. Lopez has
not demonstrated a reasonable probability that her sentence would have been
different had the district court more thoroughly explained its reasoning.
Thus, she fails to demonstrate that any error affected her substantial rights.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360.
       AFFIRMED.

                                            2