United States v. Perez-Montano

Opinion

Case: 25-50710 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED August 11, 2026

No. 25-50710 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jony Rene Perez-Montano,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-2717-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jony Rene Perez-Montano appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the 160-month term of imprisonment, which was the result of an upward variance, is substantively unreasonable because there was nothing unusual about his illegal-reentry offense; the sentence was more than double the average sentence for similarly situated defendants; and his criminal

*

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

Case: 25-50710 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2026

No. 25-50710

history was the basis for sentencing adjustments, his criminal history category, and the upward variance.

We review this substantive reasonableness challenge for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hudgens, 4 F.4th 352, 357-58 (5th Cir. 2021). The record supports the district court’s reasoning that an upward variance was warranted here due to the need to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to deter Perez-Montano from criminal conduct, and to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). In light of his extensive criminal history, which exhibits violence, recidivism, and inadequate deterrence, Perez-Montano has failed to show that he was similarly situated to the other defendants cited in the national statistics in all relevant respects. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); see also United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 337 (5th Cir. 2019). Perez-Montano did not object to the presentence report’s reliance on his criminal history when applying the sentencing adjustments and calculating his criminal history category, and the district court permissibly relied on his criminal history as a basis for an upward variance. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, we have upheld proportionally greater variances. See, e.g., United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525, 528-30 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Montano has therefore failed to establish that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. See Hudgens, 4 F.4th at 358.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.