United States v. Jacinto Carlos-Banuelos, 680 F. App'x 337

Defendant Jacinto Carlos-Banuelos convicted of being in the U.S. without permission following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).
District court sentenced Carlos to 57 months’ imprisonment under the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Guideline § 2L1.2).
Carlos did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in district court; thus appellate review is for plain error.
Carlos argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable because Guideline § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis, overemphasizes criminal history, and failed to account adequately for his mitigation (first reentry, family/employment prospects in Mexico).
The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, the presentence report, and criminal history before imposing the within-Guidelines sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 57‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Carlos: sentence greater than necessary; § 2L1.2 not empirically grounded; overweights criminal history	Government: within‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; court considered § 3553(a) factors	Held: Affirmed — Carlos failed to show plain (clear or obvious) error; within‑Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable
Whether failure to object below forfeits review	Carlos: circuit split claim that objection not required to preserve reasonableness challenge	Government: Carlos did not preserve objection; review for plain error applies	Held: Review is for plain error because no district‑court objection was made
Whether presumption of reasonableness applies to § 2L1.2 sentences	Carlos: § 2L1.2 not empirically based, so presumption shouldn't apply	Government: presumption applies to within‑Guidelines sentences	Held: Presumption applies; defendant’s disagreement with weighing of factors insufficient to rebut it
Whether mitigation (first reentry, family support) required a lower sentence	Carlos: mitigating facts justify below‑Guidelines sentence	Government: district court considered mitigation and reasonably weighed factors	Held: Court found no clear error in weighing; mitigation did not overcome presumption

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes procedural/substantive review framework after Booker)
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (plain‑error/reasonableness review discussion)
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (standards for reviewing Guidelines application)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (preservation and plain‑error review for sentencing challenges)
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (inference that district court considered applicable factors for within‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (rejecting challenge to § 2L1.2’s empirical basis)
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (rejecting similar § 2L1.2 challenge)
United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (discussing burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness)