United States v. Efren Perez-Roblero
663 F. App'x 283
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Efren Perez-Roblero pled guilty to unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and received an above-Guidelines 18-month sentence.
- At sentencing the district court relied on the presentence report (PSR) but did not explicitly resolve all factual disputes raised by Perez-Roblero.
- Perez-Roblero argued the court failed to resolve contested PSR facts as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) and that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The government contended the district court’s adoption of the PSR and the resulting sentence were proper.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed procedural claims for plain error (since no alternative sentence was requested below) and reviewed substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the district court plainly erred by relying on disputed PSR facts without ruling on them and vacated the sentence, remanding for compliance with Rule 32(i) and Gall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court resolved disputed PSR facts as required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B) | Perez-Roblero: court failed to rule on contested PSR matters the court relied upon | Government: court properly adopted PSR findings and need not separately rule on each dispute | Court: vacated sentence — district court must resolve disputed PSR facts before relying on them |
| Standard of review for procedural sentencing error | Perez-Roblero: error affected substantial rights | Government: plain-error review applies and no reversible error | Court: applied plain-error and clear-error standards but found Rule 32(i) violation requiring vacatur |
| Whether the above-Guidelines sentence was procedurally reasonable | Perez-Roblero: sentence procedurally flawed because based on unresolved facts | Government: court considered §3553(a) and had discretion to vary | Court: procedural error (reliance on unresolved facts) made the variance erroneous |
| Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable | Perez-Roblero: variance unjustified and excessive | Government: district court’s variance was within discretion and justified by factors | Court: did not reach substantive reasonableness on merits because procedural error required remand; overall sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (Fourth Circuit on preserved vs. unpreserved sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Morgan, 942 F.2d 243 (district court must rule on each PSR objection before relying on it)
- United States v. Walker, 29 F.3d 908 (adoption of PSR can satisfy Rule 32 if record shows intent to resolve objections)
- United States v. Flores-Alvarado, 779 F.3d 250 (review factual findings for clear error; must resolve disputed matters)
- United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157 (defendant’s burden to show PSR inaccuracies)
- United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595 (objection to PSR insufficient without affirmative showing)
- United States v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099 (vacatur where court plainly erred in imposing variant sentence after adopting contradictory PSR facts)