United States v. Ever Lopez-Zarate

── United States v. Ever Lopez-Zarate ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10663 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10663 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EVER LOPEZ-ZARATE, a.k.a. Ever Lopez, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cr-00128-TPB-KCD-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Ever Lopez-Zarate appeals his 24-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States. Lopez-Zarate argues that USCA11 Case: 25-10663 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10663 the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to consider the guideline range, placing too little weight on his mitigating evidence, and weighing his criminal history too heavily. Lopez-Zarate also argues that the district court did not articulate a sufficient justification for varying from the guideline range. Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm Lopez-Zarate’s sentence. I. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sen- tence under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2015). Un- der the abuse of discretion standard, we will only vacate a sentence if we have a “definite and firm conviction” that the party challeng- ing the sentence has demonstrated that the sentence is unreasona- ble. United States v. Boone, 97 F.4th 1331, 1339 (11th Cir. 2024). II. A sentence is substantively unreasonable when it is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing that § 3553(a) lists, including “the need for the sentence imposed to re- flect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, [] to provide just punishment for the offense,” to deter criminal conduct, and to protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). A district court can also impose a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to con- USCA11 Case: 25-10663 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-10663 Opinion of the Court 3 sider relevant factors due significant weight or by balancing the fac- tors in a clearly unreasonable manner. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court must consider the guideline range as the “in- itial benchmark,” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007), but it is “only one of a dozen or so factors that the court must take into account.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1258. A district court must also consider all the relevant § 3553(a) factors, but a district court may give more weight to some § 3553(a) factors than others. United States