UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELISEO LOPEZ-DOMINGUEZ, a/k/a Luis Montoya, a/k/a Arcadio Salinas, a/k/a
Juan Gregario,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00217-BR-1)
Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eliseo Lopez-Dominguez appeals his sentence of 24 months imposed following his
conviction for illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2012). He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because his offense level and
criminal history score overstate the seriousness of his case. We affirm.
We review Lopez-Dominguez’s sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir. 2014).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude Lopez-Dominguez has not
overcome the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable, nor has he shown
that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable. In particular, Lopez-Dominguez’s assertion
that he was defending his brother-in-law from being attacked runs squarely counter to his
guilty plea to aggravated robbery, cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977);
Christian v. Ballard, 792 F.3d 427, 444 (4th Cir. 2015), and even setting aside his
conviction for aggravated robbery, Lopez-Dominguez has a substantial history of illegal
conduct. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and we conclude that Lopez-Dominguez’s
sentence is reasonable.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
3