United States v. Alejandro Manuel Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027

Alejandro Manuel Torres-Ojeda, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal following aggravated-felony convictions, in violation of federal law.
Presentence report produced an advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 70–87 months (level 21, criminal history category V); plea agreement estimated a nonbinding 57–71 month range.
Torres-Ojeda sought a time-served sentence, arguing work motive, largely lawful conduct while in the U.S., lack of notice about potential prison on reentry, and that deportation (not incarceration) was sufficient.
The government recommended a within-range sentence based on criminal history, use of aliases, and quick reentry.
The district court imposed a 48-month sentence (22 months below the Guidelines range and below the plea-estimate range), explaining that prior felony domestic-assault history, need for punishment and deterrence, and his prior 18 months’ incarceration made time-served insufficient.
Torres-Ojeda appealed, claiming procedural unreasonableness for inadequate explanation and substantive unreasonableness because the sentence was greater than necessary; the court reviewed for abuse of discretion and plain error for the explanation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing explanation was procedurally adequate	Torres-Ojeda: court failed to explain why time-served was insufficient (did not address costs of incarceration or his claimed lack of notice)	Government: judge considered arguments, listened, and provided reasons linked to prior record and deterrence	The explanation was adequate; plain-error review finds no error
Whether the below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable	Torres-Ojeda: even lower sentence needed to satisfy § 3553(a) purposes given mitigation	Government: 48 months reasonable given offender's history and need for deterrence	Sentence was not substantively unreasonable; within broad discretion of district court
Whether failure to object at sentencing alters standard of review	Torres-Ojeda: challenges sufficiency but did not timely object	Government: absence of timely objection limits review to plain error	Appellate review applied plain-error standard for procedural-explanation claim
Whether district court had to address every mitigation argument	Torres-Ojeda: court should have specifically responded to each argument	Government: no obligation to address every argument; need only show consideration and reasoned basis	Court affirmed that judges need not address every argument if record shows consideration

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness and discretion of district courts)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirements for adequate explanation of a sentence; appellate review based on record showing consideration)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (timely objection required to preserve procedural-sufficiency claim; otherwise plain-error review)
United States v. Dace, 660 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2011) (district courts have discretion whether to respond to every sentencing argument)
United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2008) (not every reasonable argument requires specific judicial rejoinder)
United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2009) (when district court already varies downward, further downward variance is rarely an abuse of discretion)
United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (similar principle limiting reversal where district court imposes a substantial downward variance)