United States v. Omar Alonso-Martinez, 694 F. App'x 297

Defendant Omar Alonso-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment, an upward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 15–21 months.
The district court cited the seriousness of Alonso‑Martinez’s prior federal conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin as a primary justification for the above‑guidelines sentence.
Alonso‑Martinez argued on appeal that the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history because the prior heroin offense lacked aggravating factors, and that the court overlooked favorable factors (no prior illegal reentry conviction; family‑based motives for returning).
Alonso‑Martinez also suggested the district court’s explanation was insufficient because it referenced only a single § 3553(a) factor.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed any challenge to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for plain error but reviewed substantive-reasonableness claims for abuse of discretion under § 3553(a).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the district court made an individualized § 3553(a) assessment, reasonably emphasized his criminal history, and provided sufficiently compelling justification for the variance to 36 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court’s explanation was preserved and sufficient	Alonso‑Martinez: court erred by citing only a single § 3553(a) factor and failing to state reasons fully	Government: any challenge to sufficiency not preserved; review is plain error and brief reference was adequate	Court: Not preserved; plain‑error review fails — single reference did not show clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights
Whether 36‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Alonso‑Martinez: variance disproportionate; court overemphasized prior drug conviction and ignored mitigating factors	Government: district court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors and individualized the sentence; variance supported by seriousness of prior offense	Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed; district court’s focus on criminal history and upward variance was reasonable and sufficiently justified

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard for preserved‑issue review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (abuse‑of‑discretion review of substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a))
United States v. Mondragon‑Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (preservation and plain‑error review principles)
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (standards for determining whether sentencing court misweighed factors)
United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding variances larger than the variance here)