The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 20-month upward variance sentence for a Mexican citizen convicted of unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation, rejecting his challenge that the enhanced sentence was substantively unreasonable.
In *United States v. Gumersindo Gonzalez-Montoya* (11th Cir. 2026), a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Luck, Lagoa, and Abudu issued a per curiam opinion upholding the sentence imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Gonzalez-Montoya, also known as Gumersindo Montoya, was charged in July 2024 with illegal reentry into the United States after having been previously deported, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge without entering into a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.
The case stems from Gonzalez-Montoya's status as a citizen and national of Mexico. According to court documents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had previously removed him from the United States. The specific details of his prior deportation and the circumstances of his subsequent illegal reentry were outlined in a presentence investigation report prepared by a probation officer.
During the sentencing phase, the district court imposed a 20-month upward variance from the standard sentencing guidelines range. An upward variance occurs when a judge sentences a defendant above the recommended guideline range based on specific factors in the case. Federal sentencing guidelines provide a baseline range for similar offenses, but judges retain discretion to impose sentences above or below that range when circumstances warrant.
Gonzalez-Montoya challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that the 20-month upward variance constituted a substantively unreasonable sentence. Substantive reasonableness challenges focus on whether the length of the sentence imposed is appropriate given the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant's characteristics, and the purposes of sentencing.
The Eleventh Circuit conducted a careful review of the sentencing decision and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhanced sentence. The appeals court found that the sentence was not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.
"After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an unreasonable sentence," the court wrote in its opinion.
The decision reflects the significant discretion federal judges possess in sentencing decisions, particularly in immigration-related criminal cases. Courts must consider multiple factors when imposing sentences, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant's criminal history, the need for deterrence, and public safety considerations.
Illegal reentry cases have become increasingly common in federal courts, particularly in border states and circuits that handle high volumes of immigration-related prosecutions. The Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, regularly addresses such cases given Florida's geographic location and significant immigrant population.
The offense of illegal reentry after deportation carries potential penalties of up to two years in prison for a first offense, with enhanced penalties possible for defendants with prior felony convictions or aggravated felonies. The specific sentence range depends on various factors, including the defendant's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding both the original deportation and the subsequent reentry.
Sentencing in immigration cases often involves balancing competing considerations. Prosecutors typically argue for deterrent effect and the need to respect immigration laws, while defense attorneys may emphasize humanitarian factors, family ties, or the defendant's integration into American communities.
The case was designated for the non-argument calendar, meaning the court decided the appeal based on written briefs without oral argument. This procedural designation typically applies to cases where the legal issues are straightforward or where the outcome is clear based on established precedent.
The opinion was marked "not for publication," indicating that while it resolves the dispute between the parties, it does not establish binding precedent for future cases. However, such decisions still provide insight into how courts approach similar sentencing challenges.
Gonzalez-Montoya's case demonstrates the challenges defendants face when appealing sentences that fall within the broad discretion accorded to federal judges. Appellate courts generally defer to district court sentencing decisions unless there is clear evidence of an abuse of discretion or legal error.
The affirmance means Gonzalez-Montoya will serve his 20-month sentence as imposed by the district court. The decision also reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's approach to reviewing upward variance sentences in immigration cases, which tends to give substantial deference to trial judges who have the benefit of considering all relevant factors during sentencing hearings.
This case reflects ongoing enforcement priorities in immigration law and the federal judiciary's role in implementing criminal penalties for immigration violations. The decision contributes to the body of case law addressing appropriate sentences for illegal reentry offenses, an area of federal criminal law that continues to generate significant litigation.