Background
Ever Lopez-Zarate appealed his twenty-four-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States. He argued that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to consider the guideline range, placing too little weight on mitigating evidence, and weighing his criminal history too heavily. He also contended the court did not provide sufficient justification for varying from the guideline range.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sentence under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. It found that the district court properly considered the guideline range as an initial benchmark and all relevant factors under Section thirty-five fifty-three of Title eighteen of the United States Code. The record showed Lopez-Zarate reentered the country despite a prior felony conviction for unlawful sexual activity with a minor and a prior deportation. The court concluded the district court appropriately considered mitigating evidence and reasonably weighed the defendant’s criminal history. The seriousness of the prior sex offense justified the three-month upward variance from the guideline range of fifteen to twenty-one months.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s deferential approach to sentencing variances in illegal reentry cases where the defendant has a significant criminal history, particularly involving sex offenses.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download