United States v. Othon Robledo-Cruz
706 F. App'x 179
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Othon Robledo-Cruz, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
- Sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment, a 46-month upward variance above the Guidelines range of 8–14 months.
- The district court cited Robledo-Cruz’s prior state convictions—notably second-degree murder and aggravated assault—as the primary basis for the variance.
- Robledo-Cruz argued the variance was substantively unreasonable, asserting the murder conviction was too remote (≈17 years earlier) and already accounted for in his Guidelines range.
- The Government defended the variance relying on the § 3553(a) factors and the district court’s discretion to weigh prior violent conduct even if considered in the Guidelines.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 46-month above-Guidelines variance is substantively unreasonable | Robledo: variance overemphasized prior murder conviction; conviction too remote; already reflected in Guidelines; illegal reentry is non-violent | Government/District Court: variance justified by § 3553(a) factors and prior violent convictions; court may rely on factors already in Guidelines | Affirmed — variance not substantively unreasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether remoteness of prior conviction makes upward variance improper | Robledo: 17-year gap renders murder conviction too remote to justify variance | District Court: lengthy incarceration and the violent nature of prior offenses remain relevant | Rejected — remoteness is a weight issue for the district court, not reversible error |
| Whether sentencing court may rely on conduct already accounted for in Guidelines when imposing variance | Robledo: double-counting renders variance unwarranted | District Court/Gov: permissible to rely on factors already considered by Guidelines | Rejected — courts may consider factors that the Guidelines already account for |
| Whether illegal reentry’s non-violent nature makes variance unreasonable | Robledo: illegal reentry is an international trespass, not a violent offense | Government: prior violent convictions distinguish this defendant; § 3553(a) factors control | Rejected — prior Fifth Circuit precedent permits considering violent history despite non-violent nature of reentry |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review post-Booker)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (defines when an above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (upheld a substantially larger variance as reasonable)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (courts may rely on factors already taken into account by the Guidelines)
- United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2006) (rejects argument that illegal reentry’s non-violent nature precludes substantial sentence)
- United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholds relevance of remote but significant prior violent convictions)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing district court’s application of Guidelines)
- United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (preserved objections to sentencing reviewed for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2008) (rejects minimizing illegal reentry as merely trespass)