United States v. Jonathan Bustos-Anica, 662 F. App'x 203

Jonathan Victorino Bustos-Anica, a Mexican national, pled guilty in Oct. 2015 to illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Advisory Guidelines for the substantive §1326 offense: total offense level 10, criminal history category III, range 10–16 months.
A Feb. 2016 petition sought revocation of supervised release for violating the condition to remain outside the United States; Bustos-Anica admitted the violation.
The Chapter 7 policy-statement range for a Grade B revocation was 6–12 months.
District court consolidated sentencing: 16 months on the substantive count and 12 months on revocation, ordered to run consecutively, for a total of 28 months.
Bustos-Anica appealed, arguing (1) the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable because it ran consecutively rather than concurrently, and (2) the total sentence was greater than necessary under §3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 12‑month revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable because it ran consecutively to the substantive sentence	Bustos‑Anica: court should have ordered revocation sentence concurrent with substantive sentence	Government: Guidelines (USSG §7B1.3(f)) direct revocation terms be served consecutively to any sentence being served	Affirmed — revocation sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; consecutive ordering is consistent with Guidelines
Whether the total 28‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable or greater than necessary under §3553(a)	Bustos‑Anica: combined sentence is excessive and not needed to meet sentencing objectives	Government: district court considered Guidelines, §3553(a) factors (including multiple prior removals) and gave adequate explanation	Affirmed — sentence was reasonable under deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review; explanation and individualized assessment sufficient

Padgett v. United States, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (standard for reviewing revocation sentences and plain‑error/unreasonableness framing)
Crudup v. United States, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (procedural and substantive considerations for revocation sentences)
Moulden v. United States, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (deferential posture on facts and discretion in revocation sentencing)
Thompson v. United States, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (statement of reasons for revocation need not be as detailed as for original sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion reasonableness review and procedural/substantive analysis)
Carter v. United States, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (need for individualized assessment at sentencing)
Engle v. United States, 592 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2010) (adequate explanation permits meaningful appellate review)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasoned basis standard for sentencing explanations)
Boulware v. United States, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (affirming sufficiency of district court explanation for sentence)