United States v. Carmen Torres-Hernandez, 697 F. App'x 413

Defendant Carmen Torres-Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment, an upward variance from the 21–27 month Guidelines range.
The upward variance rested largely on a prior Texas murder conviction, the court’s assessment of deterrence, and protection of the public.
Torres-Hernandez argued the prior murder conviction was remote (old) and that he had not yet been convicted of offenses related to a recent arrest, so the court gave undue weight to his criminal history.
He also argued the district court’s sentencing remarks were insufficiently specific to justify the upward variance and that the extent of the variance was excessive, pointing to alternative Guidelines calculations (older Guidelines version or stale-conviction treatment).
The Fifth Circuit reviewed any sufficiency-of-reasons argument for plain error and reviewed substantive-reasonableness under the abuse-of-discretion standard considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the district court made an individualized § 3553(a) assessment and provided adequate grounds for the variance; the extent of the variance was not shown unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court gave insufficient reasons for upward variance	Torres-Hernandez: court statements were minimal and did not allow meaningful appellate review	Government: court considered arguments and explained weighing of § 3553(a) factors	No plain error; even if terse, defendant failed to show substantial-rights prejudice
Whether upward variance was substantively unreasonable	Torres-Hernandez: court overemphasized old murder conviction and recent-arrest facts; variance excessive	Government: court properly weighed seriousness, deterrence, and public protection against age of offense	Abuse-of-discretion review: court’s individualized § 3553(a) balancing was reasonable; affirmed
Whether extent of variance improper because of alternative Guidelines calculations	Torres-Hernandez: 60 months exceeds ranges under alternative calculations (older Guidelines or stale-conviction rules)	Government: no authority requires variance extent be tied to alternative Guidelines math	Court: defendant failed to show that extent was unreasonable or that justification was insufficient
Whether court relied on improper or irrelevant factors in sentencing	Torres-Hernandez: court gave undue weight to criminal history and arrest circumstances	Government: court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors and made a balanced judgment	Court: no clear error of judgment; no improper factor weight shown

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review of adequacy of sentencing explanation)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (prejudice required to show plain error in preserved-adjudicative contexts)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a))
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (standards for weighing sentencing factors and variance justification)
United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding substantial upward variances in sentencing)