United States v. Tonie Gonzalez-Pacheco, 706 F. App'x 832

Defendant Tonie Jo Ann Gonzalez-Pacheco pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens and four counts of transportation for commercial advantage/financial gain.
District court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 15–21 months and imposed an upward variance to 24 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release, concurrent.
Gonzalez-Pacheco did not object at sentencing; on appeal she raises procedural and substantive unreasonableness claims reviewed for plain error.
She argues the district court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors (family circumstances, low recidivism risk, history/characteristics, just punishment).
She also argues the court improperly "triple-counted" her criminal history (in offense characteristics, criminal history category, and as a basis for upward variance).
She contends the upward variance was substantively excessive given nonviolent history, prior probationary outcomes, low recidivism, and sentencing disparity concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness — failure to consider § 3553(a)	District court ignored her family, low recidivism, history/characteristics and need for just punishment	Record shows court considered § 3553(a); implicit consideration can suffice	No plain error; court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors
Double/triple-counting criminal history	Court double/triple-counted prior convictions in Guidelines and variance	Courts may consider prior convictions in Guidelines and when varying upward	No plain error; such consideration does not automatically render sentence unreasonable
Substantive reasonableness — upward variance magnitude	24 months is excessive given prior probation, nonviolent history, low recidivism, and disparity	District court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) and declined a lower sentence	No plain error; variance within district court discretion and not substantively unreasonable
Standard of review due to failure to object	N/A — defendant argues merits	Government: plain-error review applies because no timely objection	Plain-error review applied; defendant failed to meet plain-error burden

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review where defendant fails to object at sentencing)
United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (implicit consideration of § 3553(a) factors can be sufficient)
United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (double-counting in Guidelines does not automatically make sentence unreasonable)
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court may consider prior convictions when imposing an upward variance)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentencing variances)
United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2012) (deference to district court’s § 3553(a) balancing)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review limits appellate review of sentencing reasonableness)