United States v. Armando Misael Villanueva

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: February 9, 2026
• Docket: 25-1326
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0077n.06

No. 25-1326

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Feb 09, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN ) ARMANDO MISAEL VILLANUEVA, DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )

Before: McKEAGUE, LARSEN, and RITZ, Circuit Judges

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Armando Villanueva pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a

machine gun. The district court sentenced him to a within-Guidelines sentence of 84 months’

imprisonment. Villanueva challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM.

I.

Armando Villanueva possessed and trafficked firearms. A grand jury indicted him for

conspiring to possess and transfer machine guns and possessing a machine gun. Villanueva

pleaded guilty to the latter charge. Prior to sentencing, Villanueva moved for a downward

variance. The district court rejected the variance motion, calculated the Guidelines range at 70 to

87 months, and sentenced Villanueva to 84 months in prison. His sentence was to run

consecutively to any state-court sentence for a related parole violation.

Villanueva then appealed to this court, claiming that the district court had erred by

declining to run his sentence concurrent to any state-court sentence. The government admitted

that it had mistakenly opposed a concurrent sentence, despite its promise in the plea agreement not No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva

to oppose one. The government then asked this court to remand to the district court to allow the

court to reconsider whether to run the sentence consecutively or concurrently with no opposition

from the government. Based on the government’s concession of error, this court vacated the

sentence and remanded for the district court to consider whether the sentence should run

concurrently instead of consecutively. On remand, Villanueva again requested a downward

variance. The district court again rejected the variance, again calculated the Guidelines range at

70 to 87 months, and again sentenced Villanueva to 84 months. But this time the court ordered

the sentence to run concurrently to any state-court sentence. Villanueva again appeals, this time

challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

II.

A substantive reasonableness claim “is a claim that a sentence is too long.” United States

v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). “It’s a complaint that the court placed too much

weight on some of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and too little on others in sentencing the

individual.” Id. We review for an abuse of discretion, id., and presume that a sentence within the

Guidelines range, like Villanueva’s, is reasonable, United States v. Owen, 940 F.3d 308, 317 (6th

Cir. 2019).

In determining Villanueva’s sentence, the district court considered the nature and

circumstances of the offense, which included that Villanueva’s arrest stemmed from his part in a

gunfight over a girlfriend while Villanueva was on parole. As for the conviction offense itself, the

court noted that, due to its rapid-fire capabilities, the machine gun Villanueva possessed was

“extremely dangerous” and could “create devastation to a community, . . . so the seriousness of

this offense . . . [could not] be overstated.” R. 559, Sentencing Tr., PageID 2966. The court found

the seriousness of the offense “probably a preeminent factor” because there are “many

-2- No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva

neighborhoods in west Michigan that are plagued by gun violence and [Villanueva’s] conduct

substantially contributed to that by being in possession of a gun that can fire over 1,000 rounds a

minute and using a straw purchaser to get guns.” Id. at 2969. The court considered Villanueva’s

lengthy criminal history, which started at the age of 11 and included several drug and firearm

convictions. The court found this history “extremely concerning” and found that it “really

inform[ed] the [c]ourt as to whether a guideline sentence [was] appropriate here.” Id. at 2967.

The court explained that Villanueva had “a very prolific criminal history, and efforts to curtail

[Villanueva] up until this point ha[d] been met with no impact.” Id. at 2968. The court weighed

those factors against the mitigating evidence, which included that Villanueva had obtained a GED

and grew up without a father in his life and with a family facing financial problems. In the end,

the court concluded that a downward variance was not appropriate; instead, a within-Guidelines

sentence of 84 months was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory

purposes of sentencing.” Id. at 2972. The court therefore “properly considered all of the factors,

balanced them, and imposed a reasonable sentence.” See Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 443. Villanueva’s

sentence was substantively reasonable.

Villanueva argues that the court erred by not imposing a downward variance in light of his

difficult childhood and the fact that several misdemeanors were included in the calculation of his

criminal history score. He says that the court “should have considered [a] variance to a lower

guideline level” and that “[a] lower sentence in the range of 63-78 months would still afford

adequate deterrence and protect the public from further crimes.” Appellant Br. at 22. But the

district court did consider a variance; it weighed Villanueva’s positives (including those outlined

by Villanueva on appeal) against the negatives, ultimately concluding that a within-Guidelines

sentence was appropriate. Villanueva would have us balance the factors differently, but that is

-3- No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva

beyond the scope of our appellate review. United States v. Miller, 73 F.4th 427, 431 (6th Cir.

2023). Villanueva has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-

Guidelines sentence.

***

We AFFIRM.

-4-