United States v. Emilio De La Garza-Montemayor, 676 F. App'x 333

Defendant Emilio de la Garza-Montemayor pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The advisory guideline range was 57–71 months; the district court imposed a below-guidelines variance sentence of 48 months and no supervised release.
De la Garza-Montemayor sought a substantially lower (18-month) sentence, arguing the court failed to give adequate weight to the 12-year age of his prior conviction and other mitigating factors.
Defense counsel emphasized the defendant’s and his family’s health problems as chief mitigation; the court expressly considered the defendant’s personal history, prior drug-trafficking conviction, health issues, and other § 3553(a) factors.
No contemporaneous objection to the sentence was entered, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court did not plainly err in balancing § 3553(a) factors and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 48‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court failed to give sufficient weight to the 12‑year‑old prior conviction and should have imposed 18 months	De la Garza‑Montemayor: court failed to give adequate weight to the age of his prior conviction and other mitigating circumstances; asks for 18 months	Government: court granted a variance, explicitly considered § 3553(a) factors (including health and prior conviction), and reasonably weighed those factors	Affirmed. No plain error; district court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors and its balancing was not a clear error of judgment

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness of sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (grounds for rebutting presumption of reasonableness)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (applying plain‑error standard when no contemporaneous objection)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review for sentencing challenges)