United States v. Wilbert Acosta Mendez, 684 F. App'x 803

Defendant Wilbert Acosta Mendez, a citizen of El Salvador, was removed in 1997 after an aggravated-felony conviction and was found in the U.S. in 2015; he pled guilty to unauthorized reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 30 months.
The PSI applied U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2015) giving a base level 8 and a +16 enhancement for a prior "crime of violence," producing adjusted offense level 21 and Guidelines range 46–57 months (Criminal History III).
The probation officer credited acceptance/cooperation (−3) and noted personal facts: he worked and sent $800/month to children in El Salvador, had not filed U.S. tax returns, and faced a pending state aggravated battery charge.
Acosta Mendez asked for a downward variance to 1 year + 1 day, arguing the forthcoming Nov. 1, 2016 amendment to § 2L1.2 would reduce the enhancement (Amendment 802) and lower his Guidelines to 24–30 months, and urged consideration of family support, old nature of prior convictions, and foreseeable removal.
The district court applied the forthcoming amended Guidelines, weighed § 3553(a) factors (including age and violence of prior conviction, tax noncompliance vs. remittances, and likely removal), granted a downward variance to 30 months, and imposed a 3-year term of supervised release.
On appeal, Acosta Mendez challenged substantive reasonableness of the 30-month sentence; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no clear error in the district court’s § 3553(a) balancing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 30‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	The district court should have granted a larger downward variance—below the amended Guidelines—because of the age of his violent conviction, his motive to support family, and imminent removal	The court properly balanced § 3553(a) factors, applied the forthcoming amendment, and exercised discretion in weighing mitigating vs. aggravating factors	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; district court did not clearly err in § 3553(a) balancing

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness of sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (discusses reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (rare sentences are substantively unreasonable; review for clear error in § 3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (weight accorded to § 3553(a) factors is committed to district court discretion)