United States v. Adrian Alvarado
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17101
5th Cir.2012Background
- Alvarado pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography (count two) and was sentenced to 170 months’ imprisonment and a life term of supervised release, within a guidelines framework.
- Jane Doe, a 15-year-old, was identified from a non-pornographic image on Alvarado’s phone and through communications with him; she had claimed to be 20 and communicated via Mocospace.
- The Government dismissed count one (sexual exploitation of a child) and count three–five (possession) in exchange for the guilty plea to count two; the mother supported the plea but later opposed trial, leading to negotiations.
- The district court calculated an offense level of 37, criminal history I, and an advisory range of 168–210 months after adjustments; the court ultimately imposed 170 months.
- Sentencing occurred by video conference; the Government requested 180 months as a near-minimum for the offenses, and defense argued for substantially lower terms.
- The district court later imposed lifetime supervised release; on review, the court affirms the prison term but vacates and remands on the supervised-release term for individualized consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the 170-month sentence | Alvarado argues the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence. | Alvarado contends the court gave insufficient weight to offense circumstances. | Not procedurally unreasonable; judge weighed factors and explained determinations. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the 170-month sentence | Alvarado claims the sentence overstated the offense and did not reflect individualized sentencing. | Court weighed §3553(a) factors and mitigants, including lack of prior similar conduct. | Within-range sentence presumptively reasonable; substantial-deference applied. |
| Plain-error review of lifetime supervised release | Lifetime supervision was imposed automatically without case-specific analysis. | Life term required by policy statement but never weighed alternatives. | Plain error; remand for individualized consideration of supervised-release term. |
| Weight given to §3553(a) factors | Court did not balance factors, giving disproportionate weight to deterrence and protection. | Court appropriately weighed factors with discretion. | No reversal; within-Guideline sentence presumed reasonable. |
| Impact of dismissal of related counts on sentence | Unclear whether dropping count one affected the sentence outcome. | Not dispositive; court considered atypical nature and associated factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (clarifies within-Guideline review and procedural sufficiency)
- United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guideline sentences)
- United States v. Cook, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (weighs factors for reasonableness review under Gall)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2011) (within-Guideline review and totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (reiteration of reasonableness standard in sentencing)
- United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (within-Guideline sentence carries presumption of reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural/substantive review framework)
- United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2007) (discusses factors weighing and rebutting presumption)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework for forfeited issues)