Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gregorio De Nova Cantu pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in the Southern District of Texas. The district court imposed a sentence above the advisory guidelines range.
On appeal, De Nova Cantu challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable. He relied on the district court’s comments concerning his prior murder conviction and sentence, as well as the court’s upward variance in another defendant’s case.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, the court held that De Nova Cantu had not shown that the district court’s comments about his prior murder conviction and sentence rendered the above-guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable.
The panel also concluded that the upward variance imposed on a different defendant did not establish an abuse of discretion in De Nova Cantu’s case. The court therefore left his sentence intact.
Key Takeaways
- Above-guidelines sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The district court’s comments about De Nova Cantu’s prior murder conviction and sentence did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
- A variance imposed in another defendant’s case did not establish that De Nova Cantu’s sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the substantial deference appellate courts give district judges when reviewing upward variances. References to a defendant’s serious criminal history—and comparisons to a sentence imposed in another case—do not, without more, establish substantive unreasonableness.