United States v. Inmar Hernandez-Pineda
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3687
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Inmar Hernandez-Pineda, a Salvadoran national removed twice previously, participated in a failed 2015 bakery robbery in Iowa; he carried a butcher knife and fled, later arrested and hospitalized after self-inflicted stab wound.
- He pled guilty to unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and admitted the conduct violated supervised-release terms from a prior illegal-reentry conviction.
- The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory range for the reentry offense was 33–41 months; statutory maximum was 20 years because his prior removal followed an aggravated-felony conviction.
- The district court varied upward to a 120-month sentence for illegal reentry, citing escalating and repetitive criminal conduct and the need to protect the public; it also revoked supervised release and imposed 24 months, with portions of the federal terms made consecutive and concurrent with state time.
- Hernandez-Pineda appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the 120-month sentence as an abuse of discretion and arguing the court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (arrival as a toddler, family in U.S., lengthy state sentence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 120-month sentence for illegal reentry was an abuse of discretion | Hernandez-Pineda: district court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors and impose a reasonable sentence given Guidelines and state sentence | Government: district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and gave a reasoned upward variance based on defendant's escalating recidivism and danger to public | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered mitigating factors and gave a permissible individualized explanation |
| Whether district court ignored arguments about concurrent state time | Hernandez-Pineda: concurrent treatment of federal and state time should reduce federal sentence | Government: court addressed concurrency concerns and partially made federal time concurrent with state sentence | Affirmed — court asked about state parole exposure and adjusted concurrency accordingly |
| Whether the large variance (nearly triple Guidelines) required extraordinary justification | Hernandez-Pineda: deviation magnitude shows unreasonableness | Government: Gall and Feemster permit substantial deviations with individualized explanation | Affirmed — magnitude permissible given individualized § 3553(a) analysis |
| Whether appellate-cited sentencing statistics undermine the sentence | Hernandez-Pineda: Sentencing Commission data shows 10-year sentences are rare | Government: rarity alone doesn’t show error without comparable defendant profiles | Affirmed — statistics insufficient to disturb individualized variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (discusses abuse-of-discretion review and that large deviations from Guidelines can be justified by individualized assessment)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (en banc) (explains appellate review of substantive reasonableness and consideration of extent of deviation)
- United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891 (presumption that district court considered § 3553(a) factors when counsel argued them)
- United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (procedural default on appeal when issues not adequately raised)