United States v. Jose David Sumba-Loja, 664 F. App'x 593

Sumba-Loja, an Ecuadorian citizen, was convicted in Minnesota (2012) of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and ordered to register as a sex offender for life; he was removed to Ecuador on January 22, 2012.
He illegally re-entered the U.S., failed to register as a sex offender, and was arrested at Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport on November 19, 2012.
He pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal (U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2) and failure to register as a sex offender; the plea agreed a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for prior deportation after a felony crime of violence.
Agreed Guidelines computation produced an advisory range of 51–63 months (Criminal History III, 3-level reduction for acceptance, 1-level grouping increase).
District court sentenced Sumba-Loja to 51 months (bottom of range) plus five years supervised release after hearing mitigation evidence (medical impairments, motives for reentry); government sought 60 months citing public safety concerns.
On appeal, Sumba-Loja argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the 16-level enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) is excessive and flawed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 51-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)	Sentence failed to account adequately for medical/mental impairments and family/financial motive for reentry; court over-weighted deterrence/public-welfare	District court considered the § 3553(a) factors, weighed them appropriately and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence	Affirmed: sentence was reasonable; court considered relevant factors and assigned permissible weight
Whether the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) 16-level enhancement	The Guidelines provision is flawed and the 16-level increase is excessive (challenge to the enhancement's validity)	Enhancement properly applied per the plea and Guidelines; defendant did not raise this below	Reviewed for plain error and rejected; no error in applying the enhancement

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review and presumption regarding within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Stong, 773 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2014) (when a district court abuses discretion in weighting § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Robison, 759 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussion of factors constituting abuse of discretion)
United States v. Kobriger, 825 F.3d 495 (8th Cir. 2016) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming deference to district court sentencing choices)
United States v. Gasaway, 684 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court’s discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court may assign different weight to sentencing factors)
United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review when sentencing objection not preserved)