United States v. Jose Hernandez-Sanchez
669 F. App'x 245
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jose Ramon Hernandez-Sanchez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal.
- District court applied Sentencing Guidelines, including a 16-level enhancement for a 2007 conviction for transportation of illegal aliens.
- Guideline calculation also counted the 2007 conviction in the criminal history score.
- Hernandez was sentenced within the Guidelines to 37 months custody and three years supervised release.
- He argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable: Guidelines overstated offense seriousness and criminal history, double-counted the prior conviction, and did not account for his personal history and benign reasons for return.
- The district court considered these arguments and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence; the government defended the sentence as reasonable under post-Booker standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the within-Guidelines 37-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Hernandez: sentence greater than necessary; overstates seriousness/criminal history; double-counts prior conviction; Guidelines ignore personal history | Government/District Ct: within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; court considered mitigating factors and sentencing goals | Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable; defendant failed to rebut presumption |
| Whether applying a 16-level enhancement (and also counting same conviction in criminal history) improperly double counts | Hernandez: enhancement double-counts the 2007 transportation conviction | Government: Fifth Circuit precedent permits such treatment | Affirmed — prior precedent rejects double-counting claim |
| Whether the presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentences should be rebutted because Guidelines lack empirical basis for illegal reentry | Hernandez: Guidelines flawed and lack empirical foundation (preserved for appeal) | Government: presumption remains binding under circuit precedent | Rejected — argument foreclosed by circuit precedent |
| Whether the district court misweighed sentencing factors or relied on improper factors | Hernandez: court gave insufficient weight to personal history and benign motives | District court: considered factors; balanced reasonably | Affirmed — no clear error in weighing; no improper factors given significant weight |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (establishes reasonableness review post-Booker)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standards for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. application of abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (requirements to rebut presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (rejecting double-counting challenge)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (preserving challenge to Guidelines for illegal reentry)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (deference to district court’s balancing of sentencing factors)