United States v. Alejandro Ramirez-Castaneda, 635 F. App'x 124

Defendant Alejandro Ramirez‑Castaneda pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment following an upward departure from the Guidelines range.
The district court based the upward departure on multiple § 3553(a) factors: public protection, deterrence, respect for the law, and the defendant’s history and offense circumstances.
The court emphasized Ramirez‑Castaneda’s five illegal entries and multiple criminal acts while in the U.S., including recent felony convictions for intoxicated driving that severely injured a motorist.
Defense urged mitigation: defendant’s remorse, stated intent not to reoffend, prior lengthy state sentence, and deterrent effect of harsher future penalties.
The district court found the defendant’s alcohol abuse, pattern of recidivism, local family ties, and lack of credibility at allocution supported continued risk of reoffending.
Ramirez‑Castaneda appealed only the substantive reasonableness of the upward departure sentence; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the upward departure sentence was substantively reasonable	Government: sentence supported by § 3553(a) factors given public protection and deterrence needs	Ramirez‑Castaneda: extent of departure unwarranted given remorse, prior long state sentence, and deterrent effect of harsher future penalties	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; § 3553(a) factors justified departure

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for appellate review of sentencing)
United States v. Diosdado‑Star, 630 F.3d 359 (deference to district court sentencing and credibility findings)
United States v. Perez‑Pena, 453 F.3d 236 (reviewing reasonableness of sentences outside Guidelines range)
United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (disagreement with discretionary sentencing insufficient for reversal)