United States v. Edegardo Osorno Rodriguez, 701 F. App'x 820

Rodriguez pleaded guilty to 13 counts for participating in a conspiracy to transport illegal aliens in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.
District court imposed concurrent 60-month sentences—23 months above the Guidelines' high end (an upward variance).
Rodriguez argued on appeal that the sentences were procedurally unreasonable because the court relied on an unsupported assumption that the prostitutes were victims and failed to adequately explain the § 3553(a) analysis.
He also argued the sentences were substantively unreasonable for relying on an impermissible factor (the women’s particular vulnerability) and over-weighting the nature of the offense.
The appellate court reviewed procedural claims for plain error (because they were not raised below) and reviewed substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error and no abuse of discretion in imposing the upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness — reliance on vulnerability of women	Rodriguez: court relied on unsupported assumption that prostitutes were "victims" and failed to adequately explain its § 3553(a) reasoning	Government: district court properly considered offense nature and § 3553(a); no procedural error shown	Affirmed — reviewed for plain error; no on-point precedent establishing such consideration or explanation constitutes procedural error
Substantive reasonableness — weight given to vulnerability	Rodriguez: court gave impermissible weight to victims' particular vulnerability	Government: court permissibly weighed nature/circumstances of offense, including vulnerability	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court may give greater weight to offense nature and related factors
Appropriateness of upward variance generally	Rodriguez: variance was greater than necessary and improperly justified	Government: variance supported by § 3553(a) factors and within court’s discretion	Affirmed — district court did not commit clear error in weighing § 3553(a) factors
Standard of review and failure to preserve issues	Rodriguez: challenges waived by not preserving below; asks appellate relief nonetheless	Government: issues are subject to plain-error review where not preserved	Court applied plain-error for procedural claims and abuse-of-discretion for substantive claims; affirmed

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences; no presumption against above-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (when a district court abuses discretion in sentencing)
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court may consider any relevant background information for an upward variance)
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010) (preservation and plain-error review in sentencing challenges)
United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (weight given to § 3553(a) factors is within district court discretion)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness review under § 3553(a))
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2009) (deference to district court on extent of variance)