Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1308
Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
I.
Level was 29. See U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. The plea agreement indicated
- 2 -
the parties made no stipulation regarding Lpez's criminal
See id. All told, Lpez's Guidelines Sentencing Range was 262-
assault; and 2013 convictions for both child abuse and felony
of these, Lpez was found to have placed the body of his then-
- 3 -
sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment, the statutory minimum.
200 months.
II.
588, 590 (1st Cir. 2011). Here, Lpez objects only to the
(1st Cir. 2013). Although Lpez did not object below, we will
- 4 -
United States v. Nuez, 840 F.3d 1, 67 (1st Cir. 2016) (assuming
791 F.3d 193, 201 (1st Cir. 2015). Indeed, as the sentencing
discussed these factors with both the defendant and his counsel at
Rivera-Gonzlez, 626 F.3d 639, 648 (1st Cir. 2010). In fact, Lpez
- 5 -
780 F.3d 475, 478 (1st Cir. 2015) (distinguishing between co-
defendants who cooperate and those who do not), and Lpez's defense
history).
III.
1
Although we perceive no basis for disturbing the
district court's incarcerative sentence, Lpez does point out some
apparent discrepancies between the magistrate-judge's Report and
Recommendation on Plea of Guilty and the change-of-plea hearing
transcript. Nevertheless, because Lpez makes no claim on appeal
that these omissions affected his substantial rights, we need not
examine them further. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542
U.S. 74, 76 (2004) ("[W]e hold that a defendant [raising an
unpreserved Rule 11 error on appeal] is obliged to show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have
entered the plea."). He has waived any argument that the change-
of-plea colloquy was inadequate. See United States v. Zannino, 895
F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
- 6 -