United States v. Coto-Mendoza
986 F.3d 583
5th Cir.2021Background
- Defendant Francisco Coto‑Mendoza, an El Salvador citizen with multiple prior deportations and a criminal history, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry.
- The PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 37–46 months based on his criminal history; neither party objected to the range.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR’s facts and the probation officer’s Guidelines calculations, reviewed the defense sentencing memorandum, and heard counsel’s mitigation arguments and the defendant’s allocution.
- The court imposed 37 months (the bottom of the Guidelines range), stated the sentence was imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and issued a written Statement of Reasons saying it considered the advisory Guidelines and § 3553(a) factors and would impose the same sentence even if the Guidelines calculation were incorrect.
- Coto‑Mendoza appealed, arguing the district court’s explanation was procedurally inadequate for rejecting his nonfrivolous arguments for a below‑Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s brief explanation (a §3553 citation and adoption of the PSR) was an inadequate procedural explanation for denying a below‑Guidelines sentence | The Government: the court adequately explained its decision by adopting the PSR, considering the §3553(a) factors, reviewing the memorandum, hearing arguments, and issuing a written Statement of Reasons | Coto‑Mendoza: a bare statutory citation and minimal oral statement insufficient to reject nonfrivolous mitigation; Holguin‑Hernandez should eliminate the need to contemporaneously object to preserve procedural‑error claims | The Fifth Circuit affirmed: reviewed for plain error, held Holguin‑Hernandez does not change preservation for procedural claims, and concluded the district court’s explanation (oral and written record) was adequate — no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (brief explanation can suffice when judge applies Guidelines)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (plain‑error test for forfeited sentencing errors)
- Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (addressed preservation for substantive‑reasonableness claims; did not decide procedural preservation)
- United States v. Delgado‑Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (applying Gall two‑step review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (standard for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Becerril‑Pena, 714 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2013) (affirming adequacy of brief explanation where record shows consideration of mitigation and §3553 factors)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (lower courts should follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent)