[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 8, 2007
No. 06-14676 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00064-CR-FTM-29-SPC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 8, 2007)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lopez appeals the 108-month prison sentence he received after a jury
convicted him for: (1) one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute
more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii)(II) & 846; and (2) one count of conspiring to possess with intent
to distribute methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) (also known as
“ecstasy”) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), & 846. Though
the sentence falls at the low end of Lopez’s uncontested advisory guidelines range
of 108–135 months, he contends that the sentence was unreasonable in light of the
considerable evidence he submitted showing his good character and dedication as a
father, and also in light of the sentences imposed on other individuals who had
been involved in the conspiracy.
On appeal, when “reviewing the ultimate sentence imposed by the district
court for reasonableness, we consider the final sentence, in its entirety, in light of
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [sentencing] factors.” United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d
1227, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). As the party challenging the
sentence, Lopez has the burden of establishing its unreasonableness. See id.
Lopez has not carried this burden. As the government points out, the other
individuals involved in Lopez’s drug conspiracy, unlike Lopez himself, each
cooperated with the government, and are thus not “similarly situated” with Lopez
for purposes of raising a disparity issue. Furthermore, Lopez has not convinced us
2
that the evidence of his character and fatherly devotion outweighs his criminal
history and the seriousness of his offense, as well as, in the district court’s words,
“all the factors set forth in [§ 3553(a)], some of which we’ve discussed . . . but all
of which have been considered.” More importantly, he has not persuaded us that it
was unreasonable for the district court to weigh all the factors and circumstances
and reach the conclusion that it did.
AFFIRMED.
3