The Fifth Circuit affirmed a twenty-four-month sentence for illegal reentry, rejecting the defendant's claim that the above-guidelines term was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court properly justified the upward variance based on the defendant's criminal history and other statutory factors.
The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States. He appealed his twenty-four-month sentence, arguing it was substantively unreasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the district court expressly accounted for the guidelines range and justified the upward variance based on the defendant’s criminal history and other factors under Section thirty-five fifty-three of Title eighteen. The court concluded that none of those reasons constituted an abuse of discretion and cited precedent upholding proportionally greater upward variances.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s deference to district courts when justifying upward variances in illegal reentry cases based on criminal history and statutory sentencing factors.
