There are several particularized differences between the majority and the dissent in this case. One of these -- an important one, but certainly not the only important one -- was whether the district court's relatively harsh (high-guidelines range) sentence for illegal reentry was based in substantial part upon the fact that the defendant had allegedly lied to the district court at a prior sentencing hearing.
The defendant here had been deported back to Mexico numerous times and had fairly uniformly come back to the United States (illegally) quite rapidly after being deported. The last time he was caught he was charged with illegal reentry and, during sentencing, allegedly promised the district court judge that he would stay in Mexico this time and not come back. A promise that somewhat bit him in the ass when, one month after he was deported, he was again arrested in the United States for illegal reentry, and brought before the same district court judge that had sentenced him in the prior case. A district court judge who, at a bare minimum, definitely recalled this particular defendant and (maybe) what he had promised the last time around.
So, this time, when sentencing the guy, one of the things the district court judge was miffed about was the prior (alleged) broken promise. There's a fight about whether the district court judge actually had a good recollection of the broken promise (the majority view) or merely a hazy and uncertain one (the dissent). Regardless, Judge Sanchez's majority opinion says that it's not clear that the judge relied that much on the (alleged) broken promise, whereas Judge Mendoza (in dissent) thinks that the judge probably did.
You can read the record for yourself and see which view you fight most appealing in this regard.
But I can add one thing -- something that's maybe (okay, certainly) not subject to judicial notice, but is nonetheless something as to which I'm fairly/supremely confident.
The district judge in this case is down here in San Diego, Judge Burns. This much I know: He most definitely does not take a broken promise allegedly made to his face lightly. There is no doubt that he would care, deeply, about that. That it would matter. A lot.
He's not a judge you want to cross. At all.
