Rafael Sanchez-de la Rosa, a Mexican citizen, was removed from the United States in 2017 and again in 2018. In May 2024, he was arrested in Florida for driving under the influence, which was prosecuted as a felony because it was his third DUI conviction within ten years. He pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The presentence report calculated a guideline range of 46 to 57 months, applying a six-level enhancement for the post-removal felony DUI under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3). The district court imposed a 46-month sentence, rejecting a request for a downward variance and emphasizing the danger of impaired driving. Sanchez-de la Rosa appealed, arguing the enhancement was applied in error and the sentence was too harsh.
The court addressed two main issues. First, regarding the sentencing enhancement, the defendant argued that because his 2024 felony conviction relied on a pattern of conduct including pre-removal offenses, the enhancement should not apply under the commentary to § 2L1.2. The court rejected this, stating that the guideline text refers to the criminal conduct of the recidivist-enhanced offense itself, not the conduct leading to prior convictions. Since there was no binding precedent forbidding this application, and the defendant did not object below, the court found no plain error. Second, regarding substantive reasonableness, the court reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion. The district court had considered the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and found that the defendant's history of injuring others while impaired and the failure of prior sentences to deter him justified a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. The court noted the sentence was well below the 120-month statutory maximum and reasonably served the goal of public protection.
The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation that post-removal felony DUI convictions trigger the six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3) regardless of whether the defendant's criminal history includes pre-removal conduct. It also confirms that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences at the bottom of the guideline range for defendants with persistent histories of impaired driving, provided they consider the statutory factors. The case is remanded to the district court for the entry of a judgment consistent with the affirmation.