United States v. Carlos Vasquez-Abarca, 946 F.3d 990

Vasquez-Abarca was brought from Mexico as a child and has been deported three times (1997, 2005, 2015) after a 1996 felony sexual‑abuse conviction.
He repeatedly reentered the United States and received a 2002 conviction for illegal reentry, sentenced to 57 months; later returned to the U.S. and accumulated multiple driving‑related offenses and two Georgia felonies.
After a 2015 deportation he illegally reentered in ~Jan 2016, was arrested in 2017 on an outstanding warrant, and indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry following a felony conviction.
He pled guilty; the Guidelines range was 30–37 months (advisory). The government sought within‑range, defense sought 24 months below range.
The district court imposed 72 months (above the Guidelines but within the statutory maximum of 20 years); Vasquez‑Abarca appealed only the adequacy of the court’s explanation and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court gave a sufficient explanation for a 72‑month variance	Court sufficiently considered §3553(a) factors (criminal history, deterrence, public safety); explanation adequate for appellate review	Vasquez‑Abarca argued the court failed to justify such a large above‑Guidelines variance	Affirmed – court gave adequate, non‑exhaustive reasons linking variance to history and deterrence
Whether the 72‑month sentence is substantively reasonable	Sentence was a reasonable exercise of discretion given extensive prior record, prior 57‑month sentence failed to deter, public‑safety concerns from unlicensed driving	Vasquez‑Abarca argued the sentence was excessive compared to Guidelines and facts (e.g., driving violations tied to immigration status)	Affirmed – court did not abuse discretion; justification supported the degree of variance

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory; sentencing judges have §3553(a) discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must justify extent of variance; greater deviations require more significant justification)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate courts should accept district courts’ reasoned explanations that show consideration of parties’ arguments)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (limitations on applying harsher Guidelines post‑offense; importance of correct Guidelines calculation)
United States v. Sanchez‑Lopez, 858 F.3d 1064 (7th Cir. 2017) (prior sentence failure to deter can justify a longer sentence)
United States v. Kuczora, 910 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2018) (courts need not frame explanations as Guideline departures; §3553(a) explanation can suffice)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recidivist/departure provisions can be treated as sentencing factors)