United States v. Bryan Chenault
695 F. App'x 791
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bryan Chenault pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- District court adopted the presentence report (PSR), considered the § 3553(a) factors and the Guidelines, and sentenced Chenault to 100 months (above the advisory range) and three years supervised release.
- Chenault did not object to the sentence in district court; he raised procedural and substantive unreasonableness on appeal.
- Plain-error review applies because he forfeited objections below.
- The PSR contained detailed recitations of Chenault’s prior-offense facts; Chenault offered no rebuttal evidence at sentencing despite notice of a tentative above-guidelines sentence.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no clear procedural error and that the variance was not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chenault) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of the court’s explanation for a non-guidelines sentence | Court failed to adequately articulate reasons for imposing an above-guidelines sentence | District court listened to counsel, adopted PSR, considered § 3553(a) and gave reasons for variance | No plain procedural error; explanation was sufficient |
| Reliance on PSR criminal-history facts | PSR facts were unreliable and court should not have relied on them without further inquiry | PSR has sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant had opportunity to rebut but did not | PSR reliance was permissible; defendant failed to rebut PSR |
| Substantive reasonableness of 100-month sentence (29-month variance) | Variance was greater than warranted and substantively unreasonable | District court made individualized assessment and properly weighed § 3553(a) factors | Sentence was not plainly substantively unreasonable; variance within acceptable bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review applies to forfeited sentencing objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for plain-error review)
- Mares v. United States, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (district court must carefully articulate reasons for a non-guidelines sentence)
- Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (PSR can be treated as reliable evidence for factual determinations)
- Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (substantive-reasonableness review considers totality of circumstances and extent of variance)
- Williams, 517 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court may find guidelines range insufficient based on individualized assessment)