United States v. Jesus Rodriguez-Suarez, 692 F. App'x 761

Defendant Jesus Rodriguez-Suarez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
He had seven prior unlawful entries and prior convictions, including a felony for illegally carrying a weapon at a school.
He was arrested in Texas on an unrelated state charge and then detained by ICE; he had previously received a 30-month sentence for illegal reentry.
The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range calculated was 15–21 months.
The district court imposed an upward-variance sentence of 36 months.
Rodriguez appealed, arguing the 36-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 36-month upward-variance sentence is substantively unreasonable	Rodriguez: the court overemphasized prior removals and underweighted community support and recent good behavior	Government: district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors (deterrence, respect for law) and was entitled to deference	Affirmed: appellate court found no abuse of discretion; variance supported by § 3553(a) and not a clear error in balancing factors

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes review standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness post-Booker)
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (discusses standard of review for preserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (differentiates de novo review of Guidelines application from clear-error review of facts)
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (requires consideration of totality of circumstances and extent of variance)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (sets out when a sentence is substantively unreasonable)
United States v. Rodriguez-Bernal, 783 F.3d 1002 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasizes deference to district court’s factual findings and weighing of § 3553(a) factors)