United States v. Navarro-Jusino, 993 F.3d 360

Navarro-Jusino solicited about $500,000 from D.S. by promising to invest it in a purported "Blueshare Capital Fund," but no fund existed; he used the money for personal expenses and purchases.
He sent fake account statements showing investment growth and later stopped responding when D.S. sought withdrawals; the FBI confronted him and he confessed.
Navarro-Jusino pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
The PSR produced an advisory Guidelines range of 27–33 months (offense level 18, CHC I); the court imposed an upward variance to 120 months, plus 3 years supervised release and $482,000 restitution.
The district court cited the devastating financial impact on D.S., deterrence, and Navarro-Jusino’s lack of credibility about paying restitution as reasons for the large upward variance.
Navarro-Jusino appealed, arguing the 120-month sentence was substantively unreasonable; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 120-month sentence is greater than necessary under §3553(a)	Gov't: Variance justified by extreme victim harm and need for deterrence/respect for law	Navarro-Jusino: 87-month upward variance is excessive; violates §3553(a) necessity	Court: No abuse of discretion; victim devastation and defendant's minimization justify large variance
Whether the district court gave insufficient weight to the Guidelines range	Gov't: Court considered range but permissibly gave it less weight given case facts	Navarro-Jusino: Court ignored Guidelines and relied solely on variance magnitude	Court: No; court acknowledged the guideline range and explained its reasons for departing
Whether court improperly relied on experience with prior nonpayment when assessing restitution/payment likelihood	Gov't: Court may consider prior cases as one factor in an individualized assessment	Navarro-Jusino: Court improperly relied on other defendants' refusal to pay	Court: Permissible to draw on judicial experience; court made an individualized credibility finding, not an abuse of discretion

United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness review under §3553(a))
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard and preservation issues)
United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015) (when an above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (large variances require significant justification)
United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2009) (obligation to consider the Guidelines)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court may conclude Guidelines give too much or too little weight)
United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 955 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard-of-review considerations when preservation is at issue)
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (failure to adequately brief an issue is abandonment)