United States v. Deon Smith, 687 F. App'x 366

Defendant Deon Smith pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the uttering of counterfeit obligations for passing a counterfeit $100 bill.
District court imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to two concurrent state sentences.
Smith objected at sentencing but did not state specific grounds, so appellate review is for plain error.
Government conceded the district court partly relied on Smith’s prior arrests (a bare arrest record), which is an improper sentencing consideration.
The district court also relied on Smith’s recent criminal history (shootings, convictions, supervision revocations) and § 3553(a) factors (deterrence, respect for law, public protection) to justify the upward variance.
Fifth Circuit affirmed: no plain procedural error shown and the substantive variance was reasonable under totality of circumstances.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether Smith preserved specific sentencing objections	Smith objected generally to the sentence and contends it was procedurally and substantively unreasonable	Government argues general objection insufficient; review should be plain error	Held: objection too vague; plain error standard applies
Whether varying upward from Guidelines while imposing consecutive sentence was procedurally erroneous	Smith contends the combination produced a sentence greater than necessary	Government and precedents support district court discretion under § 3584 to order consecutive sentences after § 3553(a) consideration	Held: no plain procedural error in varying and imposing consecutive sentence
Whether consideration of Smith’s prior arrests required reversal	Smith argues sentence improperly relied on arrest history	Government concedes arrests are improper to consider; but Smith must show reasonable probability of a lesser sentence absent that consideration	Held: Smith failed to show prejudice; waived plain-error challenge
Whether the 60-month non-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable	Smith argues the variance was a clear error in balancing § 3553(a) factors	District court cited deterrence, respect for law, public protection and Smith’s extensive criminal history as bases for variance	Held: substantive reasonableness affirmed; variance supported by record and comparable precedents

United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir.) (general objection insufficient to preserve sentencing error)
United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing claims)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for plain-error correction)
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (two-step reasonableness review)
United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534 (5th Cir.) (lack of binding authority dispositive under plain-error review)
United States v. Conlan, 786 F.3d 380 (5th Cir.) (district court discretion under § 3584 to impose consecutive sentences after § 3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273 (5th Cir.) (error to consider bare arrest record at sentencing)
United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483 (5th Cir.) (defendant must show reasonable probability of lesser sentence when arrest record considered)
United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.) (waiver where defendant fails to develop argument on appeal)
United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (5th Cir.) (deference to district court on extent of variance)
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir.) (standards for substantive unreasonableness of non-Guidelines sentence)
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (upholding large variances)