Background
Jaime Aguilar-Guerrero was convicted of illegal reentry in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The district court imposed a 72-month prison sentence above the advisory sentencing-guidelines range. Aguilar-Guerrero appealed, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. It concluded that the record did not show that the district court failed to account for a factor deserving significant weight or gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor.
The court also found no clear error of judgment in the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors. Accordingly, Aguilar-Guerrero did not establish that his above-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit upheld Aguilar-Guerrero’s 72-month sentence for illegal reentry.
- An above-guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable merely because it exceeds the advisory range.
- The record revealed no improper factor, omitted significant factor, or clear error in balancing the sentencing considerations.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deferential substantive-reasonableness review applied to sentencing decisions. A defendant challenging an above-guidelines sentence must identify a meaningful defect in the district court’s consideration or balancing of the relevant factors.