Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40371/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santos Nepali Contreras-Mejia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40371

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Santos Nepali Contreras-Mejia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-25-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Santos Nepali Contreras-Mejia pleaded guilty, without a written plea 

agreement, to illegal reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which constituted an 

upward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 30 to 37 months of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40371 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025
No. 24-40371

2

imprisonment. Contreras-Mejia contends that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. He asserts that the district court gave 

insufficient weight to the guidelines range of 30 to 37 months and excessive 

weight to his criminal history, citing the age and nonviolent nature of his 

offenses and the counting of his criminal history in determining his guidelines 

range.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard, giving “due deference to the district court’s 

decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 

variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46-47, 49-51 (2007). We 

discern no abuse of discretion. The record reflects that the district court 

expressly took the guidelines range into account. However, the district court 

found that Contreras-Mejia’s history of driving while intoxicated (DWI)

offenses, including a pending DWI charge, and repeated illegal entries, in 

light of the need to protect the public from future crimes and to provide 

adequate deterrence, supported an above-range sentence. A defendant’s 

criminal history may support an upward variance, even if already accounted 

for by the guidelines range. United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 

2010); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). As to the 

extent of the variance, the district court likewise did not abuse its discretion. 

See, e.g., Brantley, 537 F.3d at 350.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-40371 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2025