United States v. George Anderson
697 F. App'x 359
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant George Anderson pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- District court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 33–41 months but imposed a 60‑month sentence (above the Guidelines).
- Anderson argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for lack of adequate explanation, and substantively unreasonable as excessive and too reliant on his criminal history.
- Anderson did not object at sentencing to the adequacy of the court’s explanation, so the Fifth Circuit applied plain‑error review for that claim; his substantive‑reasonableness claim was preserved and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The district court stated it considered the Guidelines, statutory penalties, § 3553(a) factors, the presentence report, defense submissions, and mitigation arguments, and explained reasons for an upward variance (lengthy criminal history, supervision noncompliance, deterrence, public protection, seriousness of offense).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the court’s explanation allowed effective appellate review and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence explanation | Anderson: district court failed to adequately explain reasons and did not address mitigating factors | Government: court considered materials and stated reasons; adequate for review | Affirmed — plain‑error review; explanation sufficient for appellate review |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence length | Anderson: 60 months is nearly double the low end of Guidelines, ignored mitigation, overemphasized criminal history | Government: district court made individualized § 3553(a) balancing and justified variance | Affirmed — abuse‑of‑discretion review; sentence not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (plain‑error standard when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432 (5th Cir.) (explanation must permit meaningful appellate review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (review standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (upholding substantial variances)
- United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430 (5th Cir.) (affirming large upward variance)