Background
Francisco Raymundo Morales-Gonzalez was convicted of illegally reentering the United States. The Western District of Texas imposed a term of imprisonment that was 12 months above the advisory guidelines range, along with supervised release.
On appeal, Morales-Gonzalez argued that the district court inadequately explained the above-guidelines sentence, that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that the court imposed supervised release without addressing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). He had not preserved the challenges concerning the sentencing explanation or supervised release.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Reviewing the unpreserved challenge to the district court’s explanation for plain error, the panel concluded that Morales-Gonzalez had not established plain error.
The panel also held that Morales-Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the above-guidelines sentence. Finally, based on the record, he did not establish reversible plain error in the imposition of supervised release.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved challenge to the adequacy of a sentencing explanation is reviewed for plain error.
- Morales-Gonzalez did not show that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence 12 months above the guidelines range.
- The record did not establish reversible plain error concerning the term of supervised release.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of overturning a sentence when objections were not preserved in the district court. Plain-error review governed two of Morales-Gonzalez’s three arguments, and the panel found no basis for reversal under that standard.
The unpublished decision also confirms that the Fifth Circuit will uphold an above-guidelines sentence when the appellant fails to establish an abuse of discretion.