United States v. Guadalupe Hernandez-Rios, 24-1716

Guadalupe Hernandez-Rios, a Mexican citizen, unlawfully entered the U.S. multiple times and was removed on five occasions between 2008 and 2017.
He has an extensive criminal history in the U.S., including convictions for driving while intoxicated, domestic violence, using false documents, and prior reentry offenses.
In January 2024, Hernandez-Rios was arrested after a traffic stop for impaired driving, leading to discovery of his unauthorized presence and outstanding warrants.
He pleaded guilty to felony reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1).
The district court sentenced him to 28 months’ imprisonment, within the advisory Guidelines range, which he appealed as unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural Reasonableness of Sentence	Court failed to give sufficient explanation of why 28 months was sufficient but not greater than necessary	Sentence properly explained and factors considered	Sentence was procedurally reasonable; no error
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence	Court gave inadequate weight to mitigating factors	Sentence within Guidelines, appropriate consideration of all factors	Sentence substantively reasonable; Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable

United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (sets standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of criminal sentences)
United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006) (court is not required to recite § 3553(a) factors explicitly)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (discusses sentencing explanations and appellate review)
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018) (how much explanation is required for sentencing varies with case circumstances)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court must consider arguments and evidence at sentencing)