FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 20, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 20-4029 (D.C. No. 4:18-CR-00116-DN-2) CHRISTIAN MENDEZ-LOPEZ, (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Christian Mendez-Lopez appeals his 48-month prison sentence for possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Utah Highway Patrol officers stopped Mr. Mendez-Lopez and his co- defendant, Steve Rios, in southern Utah and discovered they had cocaine and * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. methamphetamine. A federal grand jury charged them with one count of possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of possessing 500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both of them pled guilty to the first count in exchange for dismissal of the second count and both were sentenced to 48 months in prison. At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Mendez-Lopez argued that he deserved less than 48 months because Mr. Rios, a U.S. citizen, would remain in the country after serving his sentence, whereas Mr. Mendez-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, would be deported. He argued deportation would be an “additional penalty” and he therefore should receive less prison time to accomplish the goals of sentencing. Aplt. App. at 19 (Redacted Sentencing Transcript). II. DISCUSSION Mr. Mendez-Lopez interprets the district court’s rejection of his sentencing argument as ruling that the likelihood of deportation is an improper sentencing consideration under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He therefore asserts that the district court committed procedural error at sentencing. See United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d 1248, 1263–64 (10th Cir. 2014) (finding that district court’s refusal to consider a valid sentencing factor was procedural error). We review an alleged procedural error at sentencing for abuse of discretion, which, in this context, means “we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the guidelines and review its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir. 2012). 2 Our review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court did not say deportability could not be considered. Two passages from the sentencing hearing transcript bear this out. First, Mr. Mendez-Lopez’s attorney stated, “Once he’s back in Mexico, unless there’s some dramatic shift in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals