The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence of Jarle Del Rosario Medina, a Dominican Republic citizen who challenged his prison term for illegally reentering the United States after deportation. The three-judge panel unanimously rejected Medina's appeal in a brief per curiam opinion filed Feb. 3, 2026.
Medina, a native of the Dominican Republic, first arrived in the United States when he was 12 years old. He lived in the country for years before being convicted of a federal drug trafficking offense that resulted in a nine-year prison sentence. After serving his time, he was deported back to the Dominican Republic in 2008 when he was 31 years old.
In May 2025, Medina attempted to illegally reenter the United States. According to court documents, he and nine other individuals set sail from the Bahamas toward Palm Beach, Florida. Law enforcement apprehended all 10 people near their intended landing place.
Medina subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The federal statute criminalizes the act of an alien who has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States entering, attempting to enter, or being found in the country without permission.
During sentencing proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Medina faced an advisory federal sentencing guidelines range of zero to six months' imprisonment. Both the prosecution and defense jointly recommended a sentence of five months' imprisonment to the district court.
However, the district court judge departed from the joint recommendation and sentenced Medina to nine months' imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. The court determined that a modest upward variance from the guidelines range was appropriate, though the full reasoning for the enhanced sentence was not detailed in the appellate opinion.
Medina challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that the nine-month prison term was unreasonable. In federal criminal law, defendants can appeal their sentences if they believe the punishment is unreasonable under the totality of circumstances. Courts must consider various factors including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense.
The Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Branch, and Grant, reviewed the district court's sentencing decision. In their brief per curiam opinion, the judges found no error in the lower court's reasoning and affirmed the sentence without elaboration.
The case represents a typical example of illegal reentry prosecutions, which are among the most common federal immigration crimes. The offense carries significant penalties, with maximum sentences reaching up to 20 years depending on the defendant's criminal history and the circumstances of their previous removal.
Mediana's case highlights the ongoing enforcement of immigration laws at the federal level. The government regularly prosecutes individuals who attempt to reenter the United States after being formally removed, particularly those with prior criminal convictions. Drug trafficking offenses, like Medina's original conviction, often result in expedited removal proceedings and can enhance penalties for subsequent illegal reentry.
The Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, making it a frequent venue for illegal reentry cases given Florida's extensive coastline and proximity to Caribbean nations. The circuit regularly handles appeals from immigration-related prosecutions originating in the Southern District of Florida, which encompasses Miami and surrounding areas.
Federal sentencing in illegal reentry cases involves complex calculations under the advisory guidelines system. Factors that can increase recommended sentences include the defendant's criminal history, the nature of prior offenses, and the circumstances of the attempted reentry. Courts retain discretion to vary from guidelines recommendations if they determine such variance serves the purposes of sentencing.
The opinion was designated as "not for publication," meaning it will not be published in the official Federal Reporter and carries limited precedential value. Such designations are common for routine appeals that do not establish new legal principles or interpret novel questions of law.
Medina's unsuccessful appeal concludes his challenge to the sentence. The affirmance means he will serve his nine-month prison term followed by three years of supervised release, during which he will likely face monitoring and potential restrictions on his activities and travel.