United States v. Torres-Ojeda, No. 15-3441 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after removal following his conviction for aggravated felonies. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded, having thoroughly reviewed the record, that there is no sentencing error, plain or otherwise. In this case, the record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each of defendant's sentencing arguments, considered the supporting evidence, responded appropriately, and gave a reasoned basis for defendant's below-Guidelines sentence. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion by refusing to impose an even shorter sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant did not object to the adequacy of the court's explanation of its sentencing decision and his claim that the court committed procedural error by failing to provide an adequate explanation of why time served was not a sufficient sentence is reviewed for plain error; a court need not respond to every argument presented at sentencing, and the record the court created in this sentencing was sufficient to show the court had considered the defendant's arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision; below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.