United States v. Francisco Azcona-Polanco
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13593
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Azcona-Polanco, a Dominican national and former lawful permanent resident, was previously removed and later illegally reentered the U.S.; he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Guideline imprisonment range: 41–51 months; court imposed 41 months (bottom of range).
- Guideline supervised-release range: 1–3 years; Section 5D1.1(c) (2011 amendment) creates a presumption that deportable aliens ordinarily should not receive supervised release.
- Presentence report and defense sentencing memorandum noted the presumption against supervised release for deportable immigrants.
- District Court nevertheless imposed 3 years’ supervised release, stating it expected deportation but imposed supervision in case of illegal reentry and citing deterrence. Defendant did not object at sentencing.
- Third Circuit affirms: (1) supervised-release procedural claim reviewed for plain error and rejected on the merits/substantial-rights ground; (2) imprisonment sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by imposing supervised release on a deportable immigrant without adequate explanation under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) | Azcona-Polanco: court failed to explain departure from § 5D1.1(c)'s presumption; therefore procedural error | Government/District Court: court gave reasons (deportation history, illegal reentry, false ID, need for deterrence) and any lack of explicit citation did not affect substantial rights | Court: district courts must explain and justify imposing supervised release on deportable immigrants, addressing the presumption; but here any error did not affect substantial rights — affirmed |
| Standard of appellate review for unpreserved procedural sentencing claim | Argues plain error standard applies and reversal warranted | Government: plain error review; any error harmless because facts support supervision | Court: applied plain-error framework but assumed error and found no effect on substantial rights; no relief |
| Whether district court needed to explicitly reference § 5D1.1(c) when imposing supervised release | Azcona-Polanco: explicit acknowledgement required for clarity and appellate review | Government: need not recite guideline text verbatim if reasons are clear from record | Court: requires that court "acknowledge and address" the presumption and explain reasons for imposing supervised release; explicit citation is not mandatory but clarity is required |
| Whether 41-month imprisonment sentence was substantively unreasonable | Azcona-Polanco: argued overall sentence substantively unreasonable | Government/District Court: sentence based on Guidelines, criminal history, prior removals, illegal reentry, use of false IDs — individualized § 3553(a) analysis | Court: affirmed as substantively reasonable; district court made individualized assessment and imposed the bottom of the Guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (procedural plain-error framework for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review; need for individualized § 3553(a) assessment)
- Tomko v. United States, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir.) (procedural vs. substantive sentencing-review framework)
- Solano-Rosales v. United States, 781 F.3d 345 (6th Cir.) (district court should directly address § 5D1.1(c) presumption when imposing supervised release)