United States v. Jorge Mercado-Soto
698 F. App'x 226
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jorge Mercado‑Soto pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 0–6 months; the district court imposed an 18‑month upward variance.
- District court explained the non‑guideline sentence was based on the offense’s nature and Mercado‑Soto’s history and characteristics per 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Court emphasized Mercado‑Soto’s repeated illegal entries (multiple entries/removals in 1996, 2000, and 2013–2016) and that, after the last deportation, he reentered and transported ~112 kg of marijuana.
- Mercado‑Soto appealed, arguing the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: Did the district court adequately explain the upward variance? | Mercado‑Soto: Court failed to adequately justify a sentence triple the Guidelines high end. | Government/District Court: Court stated sentence was non‑guideline and cited offense nature and defendant history (immigration history, prior drug transport). | Affirmed — explanation was adequate under Gall and § 3553(c)(2). |
| Substantive reasonableness: Was the 18‑month variance an abuse of discretion? | Mercado‑Soto: Court overweighed immigration/criminal history and underweighted the Guidelines range. | Government/District Court: Upward variance justified by repeated illegal entries and involvement in transporting large quantity of marijuana. | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive review of sentences)
- United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2017) (describes bifurcated reasonableness review and deference to district court on substantive reasonableness)