United States v. Ernesto Cano, 981 F.3d 422

Cano was convicted in 2009 of possession with intent to distribute >100 kg of marijuana; sentenced to 80 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release.
Supervision conditions required reporting monthly and obtaining permission before leaving the judicial district; Cano absconded to Mexico multiple times and failed to report to probation.
Cano claimed he went to Mexico to help his wife and protect his children from cartels and said he remained in contact with U.S. authorities and eventually self-surrendered; the PSR repeats his claim but does not verify it.
After arrest in 2019, Cano admitted the supervised-release violations; the PSR calculated a 3–9 month guideline range per count (Grade C, CH I).
The district court imposed consecutive 24-month sentences (an upward variance), citing Cano’s absconding and stating Cano lacked regard for U.S. law; Cano appealed alleging improper reliance on promoting respect for the law and failure to credit his earlier self-surrender.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court’s reliance on Cano’s absconding was permissible under §3583 and that any failure to credit the unverified self-surrender did not warrant reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review/preservation	Gov't: Cano preserved some objections but not the claim that court relied on an improper factor; unpreserved issues reviewed for plain error	Cano: Asked sentence be reversed on multiple grounds; preserved substantive-reasonableness objection	Court: Preserved substantive-reasonableness; improper-factor claim reviewed for plain error because not specifically objected to
Use of “promote respect for the law” (improper §3553(a)(2)(A) factor)	Gov't: Court focused on Cano’s absconding (permissible under §3583) and deterrence, not punishment to promote respect	Cano: District court gave dominant weight to promoting respect for the law, an impermissible factor, producing an excessive upward variance	Court: No plain error—district court permissibly relied on absconding (history/nature and deterrence); ambiguous remark about respect for law insufficient to show substantial-rights prejudice
Failure to consider Cano’s alleged prior self-surrender	Gov't: District court considered history and was not required to credit an unverified claim in PSR	Cano: The alleged self-surrender was a material mitigating fact that should have received significant weight	Court: No abuse of discretion; omission of unverified self-surrender not an obvious error and did not render sentence unreasonable

United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2018) (two-step review for preserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (§3553(a)(2)(A) factors are not permitted in supervised-release revocation sentencing)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error framework for unpreserved sentencing objections)
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (preservation and appellate review of substantive-reasonableness objections)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (revocation proceedings are relatively informal and require verified facts to inform discretion)
United States v. Rivera, 797 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2015) (conduct leading to revocation may be considered to measure breach of trust)