United States v. Fabian Flores
678 F. App'x 235
5th Cir.2017Background
- Fabian Flores appealed a sentence after revocation of supervised release: 24 months' imprisonment (statutory maximum) plus an additional two-year supervised release term.
- At the revocation hearing Flores did not object to the district court’s consideration of certain sentencing factors. On appeal he raised procedural and substantive unreasonableness claims and argued the supervised-release extension exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).
- Flores argued the district court improperly relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors (seriousness of the offense, just punishment, respect for law) when imposing a revocation sentence.
- The Government and court noted that § 3583(e) omits § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors for revocation sentences, making those factors impermissible sources of justification for revocation sentencing.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed procedural challenge for plain error (no timely objection) and reviewed the statutory-max supervised-release issue de novo.
- The court concluded any consideration of impermissible factors was not dominant, the 24-month term was substantively reasonable, and Flores’s argument that the supervised-release aggregate maximum was three years was foreclosed by precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by considering § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors at revocation sentencing | Court relied on impermissible factors (seriousness, just punishment); Flores raised plain-error review | Any error was not preserved; district court may permissibly consider other § 3553 factors | Plain-error review: error not shown to be clear and dominant; no reversal |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable | Consideration of impermissible factors rendered sentence substantively unreasonable | Court properly balanced permissible factors; sentence within statutory range | Sentence substantively reasonable; affirmed |
| Whether supervised-release extension exceeded statutory maximum per § 3583(h) | Aggregate supervised-release maximum available was three years; extension violated § 3583(h) | Precedent limits general § 3583(b) maxima after amendment to § 841(b)(1)(C); Flores’s argument foreclosed | De novo review; Flores’s statutory argument foreclosed by Jackson; affirmed |
| Standard of appellate review for unobjected-to procedural errors | N/A (procedural posture) | Plain-error standard applies | Plain-error standard applied; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (§ 3583(e) excludes § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors for revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards for substantive reasonableness of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for unobjected-to sentencing errors in revocation context)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for plain-error relief)
- United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2009) (post-amendment holding that § 3583(b) general maxima do not apply to revocation sentencing for § 841(b)(1)(C) originals)