Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 26-1972 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Erlin Robles-Munoz Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 26, 2026 Filed: November 6, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before L.R. SMITH, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Erlin Robles-Munoz appeals after he pled guilty to illegal reentry, arguing that the district court’s 1 decision to vary upward was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including mitigating factors such as the potential danger facing Robles-Munoz and his family, and aggravating factors such as his multiple prior illegal reentries and pretrial release violations. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion, which occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 47–51 (2007) (district court must make individualized assessment based on facts presented; while this court may consider extent of deviation, it must give due deference to district court’s decision that § 3553(a) factors, on whole, justify extent of variance). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-