United States v. Garcia-Damian, 702 F. App'x 743

Defendant Andres Garcia-Damian, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; sentenced to 46 months imprisonment.
Prior Texas convictions: (1) domestic assault (45-day sentence); (2) Indecency With a Child—Sexual Contact (deferred 6-year probation) based on touching his eight-year-old stepdaughter; removal to Mexico followed and later unlawful reentry.
Presentence Report applied the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines: base offense level 8, +16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for reentry after removal following a felony "crime of violence," 3-level reduction for acceptance → total offense level 21, CHC III → Guideline range 46–57 months.
District court denied a downward variance despite letters of support from wife and stepdaughter, overruled defense objection to the 16-level enhancement, and imposed a 46-month within-Guidelines sentence.
On appeal defendant challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness (including reliance on Guidelines and weight given to § 3553(a) factors) and argued subsequent Guideline amendments would have yielded a much lower range.

Issue	Garcia‑Damian's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court failed to adequately explain its sentence / rejection of downward variance	Court gave inadequate reasons; reversal required	Explanation matched circuit precedent and sufficiently noted Guidelines range and consideration of § 3553(a)	No plain error; explanation adequate under Ruiz‑Terrazas standard
Whether district court presumed Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable	Court treated Guidelines as presumptively binding	No evidence court applied legal presumption; courts are presumed to know the law	No reversible error; no indication of improper presumption
Whether court erred by not applying downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) sua sponte	CHC substantially overstates criminal history; departure warranted	Defendant never moved for departure; district court not required to grant unrequested discretionary departure	No plain error; defendant bears burden to prove entitlement to departure
Whether sentence is substantively unreasonable given § 3553(a) factors and later Guideline amendments	District court misweighed mitigating factors; later amendments lower Guidelines to 10–16 months, showing unreasonableness	District court acted within broad discretion; amendments are non‑retroactive and do not alone render sentence unreasonable	Sentence substantively reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review; non‑retroactive Guideline changes do not require resentencing

Ruiz‑Terrazas v. United States, 477 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (explains sufficiency of district court sentencing explanation for within‑Guidelines sentences)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (addresses appellate presumptions regarding reasonableness of Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review framework in sentencing contexts)
United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2008) (examples of adequate sentencing explanations)
United States v. Sierra‑Castillo, 405 F.3d 932 (10th Cir. 2005) (defendant bears burden to show entitlement to downward departure)
United States v. Vasquez‑Alcarez, 647 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2011) (discusses limits on relying on non‑retroactive Guidelines amendments)