Case Explained: United States v. Pantoja-Hernandez

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-06 Docket: 2:25-CR-00066-KG-1) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment imposing a total sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment on Jose Socorro Pantoja-Hernandez for illegal reentry and a supervised release violation. The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to review the defendant’s challenge regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because both sentences fell within the correctly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges, they were presumed reasonable, placing a heavy burden on the appellant to rebut that presumption. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that his placement in Criminal History Category VI created an unwarranted disparity under § 3553(a)(6), noting that Category VI applies to defendants with at least 13 criminal history points regardless of whether offenses are violent, and finding no evidence presented by the defendant showing actual sentencing disparities compared to similarly situated offenders. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the parties’ recommended lower sentences, as sentencing courts are not bound by such recommendations and must exercise independent judgment based on the statutory factors. Additionally, the court determined that any procedural argument regarding the district court’s failure to explicitly discuss sentence disparities was not properly before it, as the appeal challenged only substantive reasonableness, and the district court’s general consideration of § 3553(a) factors was sufficient for within-Guidelines sentences. As a result of this decision, the defendant’s convictions and sentences remain in effect, and he must serve the imposed term of imprisonment. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.