United States v. Alfonso Ochoa-Montano, 666 F. App'x 554

Ochoa-Montano, a Mexican national, pleaded guilty to unlawfully being in the U.S. after removal, with a statutory max of 20 years.
He had four prior removals, the most recent in 2002 after a money laundering conviction; he returned days later.
The district court sentenced him to 24 months, at the top of the Guidelines range (18–24).
Probation reports and sentencing heard arguments about family hardship, possible mitigation, and the § 2L1.2 increase.
Judge rejected mitigation arguments and emphasized respect for law and deterrence, citing his repeated illegal entries and related conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors	Ochoa-Montano argues factors were weighed in his disfavor	Ochoa-Montano contends sentencing overlooked mitigating factors	Judgment within discretion; factors weighed within permissible borders
Whether deterrence was overemphasized at the expense of other factors	Ochoa-Montano challenged focus on deterrence	Court weighed deterrence but also considered other factors	Court did not improper rely on deterrence; weighed multiple §3553(a) factors
Whether the judge prematurely announced a Guidelines-range sentence	Judge indicated no departure but allowed variances	No improper anticipation of sentence beyond consideration	Not reversible; proper disclosure allowed while considering variances
Whether the 8-level §2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement was misapplied	Enhancement overstates culpability given family circumstances	Enhancement appropriately reflects recidivist and illicit conduct	Enhancement sustained; sentencing within range affirmed
Whether the court adequately addressed mitigation arguments	Arguments about family hardship and time served were minimized	Judge addressed mitigation but found it insufficient	Court need not grant downward variance; considered principal mitigation arguments

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumes within-guidelines sentence reasonable; factor weighting left to district court)
Grzegorczyk, 800 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2015) (court weighs §3553(a) factors; not all must be detailed in mitigation)
Lockwood, 789 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court must consider §3553(a) factors)
Melendez, 819 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2016) (discretion given to weigh §3553(a) factors)
Smith, 721 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2013) (weight given §3553(a) factors is within judge's discretion)
Busara, 551 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court discretion in sentencing within guidelines)
Johnson, 471 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2006) (recognizes district court discretion in weighing §3553(a))
Warner, 792 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) (discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors; not reversible error for disagreeable weighing)
Gammicchia, 498 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing mitigation arguments in sentencing)
Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court need address principal mitigation arguments)
Rushton, 738 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court broad discretion within guidelines)
Dill, 799 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2015) (judge may have sentence in mind yet remain open to argument)