United States v. Mejia-Perez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6212
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mejia-Perez, a Mexican citizen, had been deported multiple times and reentered illegally in October 2008.
- In November 2009, Mejia-Perez was arrested for DUI in South Dakota and charged with illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- He pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation; district court sentenced him to 20 months, above the zero-to-six-month guideline range.
- The Presentence Report counted one criminal-history point for a February 2008 DUI, placing him in Category I and creating an advisory range of 0–6 months.
- Two weeks before sentencing, the district court warned it would consider an upward departure or variance based on his immigration history and § 3553(a) factors.
- On appeal, Mejia-Perez challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable; the court affirmed, finding the upward departure/variance warranted by the circumstances and not procedurally deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the guidelines. | Mejia-Perez argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable. | Mejia-Perez contends the court failed to properly justify an upward departure/variance and relied on factors not supported by law. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed as reasonable given aggravating immigration-history context and § 3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc: standard for reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2009) (upward consideration of uncounseled or uncaptured prior immigration history)
- United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2009) (immigration history as evidence of incorrigibility supporting departure/variance)
- United States v. Brown, 627 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2010) (deny need for mechanical recital of factors; focus on substantial considerations)
- United States v. McKinzie, 557 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error considerations when departure/variance not clearly articulated)
- United States v. Levi, 229 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 2000) (absence of ritualistic recitation acceptable if aggravating circumstances exist)
- United States v. Day, 998 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1993) (early guidance on departures and non-mechanical reasoning)