United States v. Victor Mancha
688 F. App'x 271
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victor Alejandro Mancha pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.
- The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 8–14 months; the district court imposed an upward variance to 36 months.
- Mancha did not object to the sentence in district court; he challenges only substantive reasonableness on appeal (no procedural-error claim).
- Mancha argued his prior attempted child-abuse conviction was remote, other priors were misdemeanors, the offense was nonviolent, and the sentence failed to account for his personal circumstances.
- The district court considered mitigating arguments, rejected a 12-level enhancement for the prior attempted child-abuse conviction, and explained the variance based on Mancha’s criminal history.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review | Mancha: reviewing court should assess reasonableness on the merits | Government: no objection in district court so plain-error review applies | Plain-error review applies because Mancha failed to object below (Mancha concedes this) |
| Substantive reasonableness of upward variance | Mancha: 36 months is greater than necessary under § 3553(a) | Government: variance justified by criminal history and district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Affirmed: Mancha fails to show reversible plain error; variance not substantively unreasonable |
| Consideration of mitigating/personal circumstances | Mancha: court failed to account adequately for his personal circumstances and motives for reentry | Government: court heard and considered mitigating factors; granted objection to 12-level enhancement | Held: court considered mitigating factors; claim that personal circumstances were ignored is meritless |
| Seriousness of illegal reentry offense | Mancha: nonviolent nature means a lesser sentence is appropriate | Government: illegal reentry seriousness can warrant significant sentence; precedent upholds nonviolent-status does not mandate leniency | Held: Fifth Circuit has repeatedly rejected that illegal reentry’s nonviolent character requires lower sentences; variance consistent with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence review)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error framework for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object to sentence)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (criminal history may justify non-Guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2006) (rejects argument that nonviolent illegal reentry necessarily less serious)
- United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2008) (similar rejection regarding nonviolent entry)
- United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholding larger variances/departures)
- United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding substantial upward departures)