United States v. Jorge Vazquez-Gallardo, 433 F. App'x 415

Vazquez-Gallardo pleaded guilty to one count of Illegal Reentry after Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (2).
He had been previously ordered removed in 2007 and 2009, and was found in the U.S. without permission to reenter at the Columbus, Ohio jail.
Criminal history includes a 2009 attempted reentry conviction and a 2007 driving offense; at sentencing, two prior deportations were noted.
The applicable Guidelines range was zero to six months based on offense level 6, criminal history I; the Government urged at least three months.
The district court sentenced Vazquez to 12 months of incarceration followed by one year of supervised release, explaining deterrence and prior leniency failures as justifications.
Vazquez appeals, arguing the sentence lacks a compelling, on-record justification and that mitigating factors were inadequately considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Above-Guidelines sentence justified?	Vazquez claims no compelling justification on record.	Government asserts the court properly outside the Guidelines with detailed rationale.	Sentence affirmed; justification deemed sufficiently compelling on the record.
Were mitigating factors adequately considered?	Vazquez contends factors like work history and offense context were not adequately addressed.	Court reviewed and considered the mitigating information and defense submission.	Court adequately considered Vazquez’s mitigating factors.
Fast-track consideration on appeal?	Vazquez argues fast-track factors should have been considered, citing Camacho-Arellano.	Issue raised for the first time on appeal; not meritless but not preserved.	Issue not reversible; not decided in Vazquez’s favor on appeal.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes standard for outside-Guidelines variance and need for compelling justification)
Walls, 546 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2008) (substantive-reasonableness review for sentences)
Herrera‑Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirmative presumption for within-Guidelines sentences; no presumption against outside range)
Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2010) (requires sufficiently compelling justification for outside-Guidelines variance)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (records must reflect consideration of § 3553(a) factors; reasoned basis for decision)
Liou, 491 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2007) (requires adequate consideration of § 3553(a) factors for sentence)
Camacho-Arellano, 614 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2010) (remand when fast-track factors are raised on appeal)