United States v. Jose Quezada-Huerta
674 F. App'x 438
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Eduardo Quezada-Huerta pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- His Guidelines total offense level was 17 and criminal-history category I, yielding a 24–30 month range.
- At sentencing Quezada sought a below-Guidelines term, citing a minimal criminal history and that he reentered to escape persons who had kidnapped him in Mexico.
- The district court imposed the bottom-of-range sentence of 24 months; Quezada objected that the sentence exceeded what § 3553(a) required.
- Quezada did not challenge the Guidelines calculation itself, only the substantive reasonableness of the within-Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quezada) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is substantively unreasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacks empirical basis | § 2L1.2 inflates sentencing ranges and is unsupported empirically | Circuit precedent upholds § 2L1.2; challenge is foreclosed | Rejected — circuit has repeatedly rejected this challenge |
| Whether the court should have applied amended § 2L1.2 (post-revision) to lower the range | Revised Guideline would produce a substantially lower range; sentence is excessive | Court must apply the Guidelines in effect at sentencing | Rejected — district court properly applied the then-current Guidelines |
| Whether defendant's fear-based motive (flight from kidnappers) warranted a below-Guidelines sentence | Personal history/characteristics (danger in Mexico) justify variance | Court considered mitigation but a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Rejected — defendant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness |
| Standard of review for preserved objections to sentence | N/A (procedural posture) | N/A | Preserved objection reviewed for substantive reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion standard (Gall) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing de novo review of Guidelines application from clear-error review of facts)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review when issues not preserved)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir.) (rejecting empirical-basis challenge to § 2L1.2)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889 (5th Cir.) (applying Guidelines in effect at sentencing)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.) (rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (sentencing judge's superior position to assess § 3553(a) factors)