United States v. Martinez, 660 F. App'x 659

Martinez, an El Salvadoran citizen, was arrested at a New Mexico checkpoint and charged with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
He had prior convictions including a 2011 24-month sentence and supervised release for illegal reentry, and a prior drug‑trafficking conviction; he also claimed a killing in California was in self‑defense.
Martinez and the government submitted a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) fast‑track plea that would have produced an 8–14 month sentence (four‑level fast‑track reduction plus two levels for acceptance of responsibility).
The district court rejected the fast‑track plea, finding it lacked sufficient flexibility to account for § 3553(a) factors (especially deterrence), and afforded Martinez the chance to withdraw his plea.
Martinez then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement; the Guidelines range became 18–24 months and the court imposed the top end (24 months), explaining in a lengthy opinion its consideration of § 3553(a) factors and emphasis on deterrence.
On appeal Martinez argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court overemphasized deterrence and erred in rejecting the fast‑track plea; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 24‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Martinez: Court overemphasized deterrence and ignored other § 3553(a) factors	Government: Court considered all § 3553(a) factors; within Guidelines, so presumptively reasonable	Affirmed — sentence within properly calculated Guidelines; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether rejecting the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) fast‑track plea was erroneous	Martinez: Rejection deprived him of agreed‑upon benefit	Government: District court has discretion to accept/reject plea; rejection was justified by § 3553(a) concerns	Affirmed — court properly exercised discretion in rejecting the fast‑track plea

United States v. Ruby, 706 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Balbin‑Mesa, 643 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court sentencing decisions)
United States v. Alvarez‑Bernabe, 626 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2010) (review of sentencing reasonableness and § 3553(a) analysis)
United States v. Chavez, 723 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2013) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Robinson, 45 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1995) (district court discretion to accept or reject plea agreements)