The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a 24-month prison sentence for Gabriel Rojas-Lopez, a Mexican citizen convicted of illegal reentry into the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The decision, filed Feb. 3, 2026, rejected the defendant's arguments that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Rojas-Lopez, who also goes by the alias Francisco Reyes, appealed his sentence from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The appeals court, consisting of Circuit Judges Jordan, Lagoa, and Kidd, issued a per curiam opinion upholding the lower court's decision.
The case stems from charges that Rojas-Lopez unlawfully remained in the United States after having been previously removed by immigration authorities. According to court documents, this marked at least the fourth time Rojas-Lopez had unlawfully entered or attempted to enter the United States.
The defendant's immigration history dates back to 2018, when he was first encountered by immigration officials in Madison County, Georgia. At that time, he had been arrested on family violence charges and was discovered to have entered the United States without proper inspection or admission.
In his appeal, Rojas-Lopez argued that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an upward variance that resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. He specifically claimed the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the federal sentencing statute that requires courts to consider various factors when imposing sentences.
Additionally, Rojas-Lopez contended that his sentence created an unwarranted sentencing disparity between similarly situated defendants. This argument relates to the principle that defendants with similar criminal histories and offense characteristics should receive comparable sentences absent justifying circumstances.
The Eleventh Circuit, however, found these arguments unpersuasive. The appeals court determined that the district court properly exercised its discretion in departing upward from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Federal sentencing guidelines provide recommended ranges for various offenses, but judges retain discretion to impose sentences above or below these ranges when circumstances warrant such departures.
Illegal reentry cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) are among the most frequently prosecuted immigration offenses in federal court. The statute makes it a felony for individuals who have been formally removed from the United States to unlawfully return without permission from the Attorney General. Sentences can vary significantly based on factors including the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of previous removals, and other aggravating or mitigating factors.
The 24-month sentence imposed on Rojas-Lopez reflects the serious nature federal courts assign to repeat immigration violations. Courts often view multiple illegal entries as demonstrating disrespect for immigration laws and the removal process, factors that can justify enhanced sentences.
The case was handled on the non-argument calendar, meaning the appeals court decided the matter based solely on written briefs without oral arguments. This procedural approach is typically used for cases where the legal issues are straightforward or where precedent clearly governs the outcome.
The Eleventh Circuit covers federal appeals from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The circuit has jurisdiction over numerous immigration cases given the region's proximity to international borders and significant immigrant populations. Immigration-related appeals constitute a substantial portion of the circuit's criminal docket.
Rojas-Lopez's use of an alias, Francisco Reyes, may have been a factor in the court's sentencing decision. Identity fraud or the use of false names can be viewed as aggravating factors that demonstrate attempts to evade law enforcement and immigration authorities.
The affirmation of this sentence reinforces established precedent that federal courts have broad discretion in sentencing decisions, particularly in immigration cases involving repeat offenders. Appeals courts typically defer to trial courts' sentencing decisions unless they constitute a clear abuse of discretion or are based on clearly erroneous factual findings.
The decision serves as a reminder that individuals with multiple immigration violations face increasingly severe consequences for continued illegal presence in the United States. Federal prosecutors continue to prioritize enforcement of immigration laws, particularly against repeat offenders who demonstrate a pattern of disregarding removal orders.
For immigration attorneys and defendants facing similar charges, this case underscores the importance of presenting compelling mitigating evidence at sentencing. While the appeals court did not detail the specific mitigating factors Rojas-Lopez presented, the rejection of his appeal suggests they were insufficient to overcome the aggravating circumstances of his repeated illegal entries.
The case reflects ongoing federal enforcement priorities targeting individuals who repeatedly violate immigration laws after formal removal proceedings. Such prosecutions remain a significant component of federal criminal dockets in border states and regions with large immigrant populations.