United States v. Reyes

── United States v. Reyes ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-2144 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-2144 (D.C. No. 2:25-CR-03851-MIS-1) JARESSLY ESMERALDA REYES, (D.N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________ Although a district court may not consider the nature and circumstances of the offense as relevant for the considerations set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(A)—“to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”—it may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense as relevant for the considerations set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C), and (D)— deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined ** unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  Appellate Case: 25-2144 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 2 Here, the district court revoked Defendant Jaressly Esmeralda Reyes’s supervised release and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant contends that the district court erred by considering the prohibited retributive factors set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(A). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Western District”) sentenced Defendant to forty-one months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release for importing into the United States from Mexico a controlled substance, which involved 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1)(H). Two years into her term of supervised release, law enforcement arrested Defendant in New Mexico, and the government charged her with conspiracy to commit alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(a)(v)(I). The Western District transferred her supervised release case to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Probation petitioned to revoke Defendant’s supervised release, citing two violations: committing another federal crime and leaving the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer. The district court held a combined sentencing hearing and supervised release revocation hearing. At the hearing, Defendant admitted to the two violations i