Case: 16-15941 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15941
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00586-JLK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT ALLEN LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 18, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15941 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 Page: 2 of 5
Robert Allen Lopez appeals his 60-month sentence, imposed after he pled
guilty to conspiracy to commit Medicare fraud, an offense against the United
States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Lopez initially failed to report to pretrial
services, an arrest warrant was issued, and the U.S. Marshal ultimately brought
Lopez back from Nicaragua to the Southern District of Florida. Lopez contends
that the district court procedurally erred by concluding that the conditions of his
confinement in a Nicaraguan jail for five months while he awaited extradition to
the United States were irrelevant to whether he received a downward variance or
departure. He also argues that the district court precluded him from describing the
conditions and duration of his confinement during sentencing.
When reviewing a sentence, we ensure that the district court did not commit
a significant procedural error. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We
review de novo a claim that a district court erroneously believed it lacked the
authority to depart. United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir.
2003). When nothing in the record indicates otherwise, we assume that the district
court understood it had the authority to depart. United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d
1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). But if “the district court’s statements reflect an
ambiguity concerning its ability to depart,” we resolve the ambiguity in the
defendant’s favor. United States v. Ortega, 358 F.3d 1278, 1279 & n.3 (11th Cir.
2003).
2
Case: 16-15941 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 Page: 3 of 5
If a district court does not find a basis for a sentencing variance, the court
must impose a sentence within the guidelines range “unless the court finds that
there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not
adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating
the guidelines that should result in a” different sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1).
A “district court may reduce a sentence to account for the harsh conditions of
pretrial confinement.” United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1118 (11th Cir.
2011); see also Pressley, 345 F.3d at 1218 (stating that harsh conditions of
confinement may provide a basis for a departure).
Before imposing a sentence, a district court must “address the defendant
personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to
mitigate the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). “The right of allocution
provides a defendant an opportunity to plead personally to the court for leniency in
his sentence by stating mitigating factors and to have that plea considered by the
court in determining the appropriate sentence.” United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d
568, 583 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in sentencing Lopez.
During the sentencing hearing, the district court permitted Lopez to describe
the conditions of his five months of confinement in the Nicaraguan jail. Lopez
3
Case: 16-15941 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 Page: 4 of 5
spoke about how long he was confined, the conditions in which he lived, and the
ways in which his confinement affected him. Lopez’s contention that the district
court precluded him from presenting mitigating information is without merit.
We recognize that early on, the district court stated that the conditions of
Lopez’s confinement were “not relevant here.” But later on, the district court
indicated that Lopez’s confinement in the Nicaraguan jail could be considered and
“that’s a matter of judicial discretion” in sentencing. The district court also made
other statements that indicate it understood it had the authority to depart. The
district court also recognized the poor jail conditions in Nicaragua, stating:
“Apparently, it’s a terrible place.”
The government, however, argued forcefully against a sentencing variance,
emphasizing that Lopez had stolen once $2 million in Medicare funds, that he tried
to steal over $4 million, and that he was in the Nicaraguan jail for only five
months. The government stressed that other cases with sentence reductions
involved harsh confinement that lasted for years, not a matter of months. See
Pressley, 345 F.3d at 1218 (defendant had spent five years in a 23-hour lockdown).
Ultimately, the district court noted Lopez’s “poor choice” of fleeing to
Nicaragua, which turned out to be a “very, very bad place to end up in jail,” was
not outweighed by the seriousness of the substantial fraud Lopez committed and
4
Case: 16-15941 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 Page: 5 of 5
the need to protect the public and others. The court determined “in this case, the
advisory guidelines [sentence] . . . is appropriate.”
Considering the record as a whole, we conclude that Lopez has not carried
his burden to show procedural error. Thus, we affirm Lopez’s 60-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5