United States of America v. Jose Ramirez Lopez, a/k/a Jose Wilmer Valle-Vargas, a/k/a Jose Wilmer Valles, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4791
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE RAMIREZ LOPEZ, a/k/a Jose Wilmer Valle-Vargas, a/k/a
Jose Wilmer Valles, a/k/a Jose Lopez, a/k/a Marvin
Ramirez-Valle,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cr-00455-PMD-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: July 1, 2016
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alicia Vachira Penn, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles,
United States Attorney, Dean H. Secor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Ramirez Lopez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). On appeal, Ramirez Lopez challenges
only the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance
sentence imposed by the district court. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Where, as here, the defendant
alleges no significant procedural error, we consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence to determine whether
the court abused its discretion in determining that the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors supported the sentence it
imposed. See United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366
(4th Cir. 2011). In reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines
range, we determine “whether the district court acted reasonably
both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and
with respect to the extent of the divergence from the
[G]uideline[s] range.” United States v. Perez-Pena, 453 F.3d
236, 241 (4th Cir. 2006).
Ramirez Lopez argues on appeal that the extent of the
district court’s variance was unwarranted under the
circumstances presented, noting that he had no prior convictions

-- 2 of 4 --

3
for violent crimes and contending that his convictions were
adequately considered in his Guidelines calculation. He asserts
that the district court ignored the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and argues that the 24-month sentence
was greater than necessary to deter him from returning to the
United States. These arguments are insufficient to demonstrate
that the court’s upward variance was unreasonable. The district
court expressly grounded its sentence in numerous § 3553(a)
factors — including the need to protect the public, to deter
future criminal conduct, to provide just punishment and to
promote respect for the law, as well as Ramirez Lopez’s history
and the circumstances of the offense. The court based Ramirez
Lopez’s upward variance on his five illegal entries into the
United States and multiple instances of criminal conduct while
present in the country, including three convictions for
intoxicated driving, and a conviction for possession of cocaine.
While Ramirez Lopez and his counsel advised the court that
he was sincerely remorseful, had stopped drinking and resolved
not to reoffend, Ramirez Lopez’s alcohol abuse and pattern of
blatant disrespect for the law amply supported the court’s
determination that he would continue his persistent recidivism.
In short, Ramirez Lopez’s arguments represent mere disagreement
with the sentencing court’s exercise of its discretion and are
“insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” See

-- 3 of 4 --

4
United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --