United States v. Fernando Fraga
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 688
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Fraga pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) and received a 27-month prison term and lifetime supervised release.
- The plea agreement contemplated potential credit for acceptance of responsibility and possible reductions for substantial assistance; the PSR showed a guidelines range of 12–18 months with five years to life supervised release.
- The PSR described Fraga’s extensive criminal history, including a 1994 sexual assault of a minor and multiple later violations, with several uncharged or unpointed alleged offenses.
- The district court upwardly departed to 27 months and imposed lifetime supervised release, finding the history and deterrence justified the variance.
- Fraga objected to the upward variance and the length of the supervised-release term, challenging both procedural and substantive reasonableness.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the 27-month sentence as reasonable but vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the lifetime supervised-release term under United States v. Alvarado.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of sentence explanation | Fraga contends the judge failed to adequately explain reasons for rejecting mitigation and for the upward variance. | Fraga argues the court did not sufficiently address mitigating evidence and 3553(a) factors. | No reversible procedural error; explanation adequate under Rita and related precedents. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the 27-month sentence | Fraga asserts the court overemphasized criminal history and underweighted cooperation. | Fraga claims sentence misbalances deterrence, safety, and history; cooperation should weigh more. | Sentence substantially reasonable; district court’s weighing of factors upheld. |
| Weight given to Fraga's criminal history | Fraga argues history overstates danger and should be tempered by cooperation and age of 1994 conviction. | Court properly weighed history to deter and protect the public. | Court reasonably emphasized history; variance justified. |
| Consideration of age of the 1994 conviction | Fraga argues the age of the conviction should reduce weight. | Court appropriately weighed long history of assaultive behavior regardless of age. | Plain error review not satisfied; any error did not affect substantial rights under record. |
| Lifetime term of supervised release post-Alvarado | Imposition of lifetime supervision was automatic and not grounded in case-specific analysis. | Court did not engage in automatic imposition; analysis under 3553(a) was required. | Vacated and remanded for lifetime term consistent with Alvarado; remand to consider non-life options. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural requirement to explain sentence under § 3553(a))
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (explains adequacy of explanation varies by complexity)
- Bonilla v. United States, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (limits of required recitation of § 3553(a) factors)
- Mondragon-Santiago v. United States, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (guideline calculations and reasonableness review standards)
- Smith v. United States, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (non-Guideline sentences and factor consideration)
- Alvarado v. United States, 691 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for lifetime supervised release • need for analysis, not automatic)