United States v. George Lorenzo, Jr.
698 F. App'x 162
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- George Lorenzo Jr. was serving supervised release after a child-pornography conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
- He committed multiple supervised-release violations, including soliciting a prostitute and possessing child pornography.
- On revocation the district court sentenced Lorenzo to 24 months, which is 14 months above the Sentencing Guidelines range of 4–10 months for revocation (U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a)).
- Lorenzo did not object in the district court to the adequacy of the court’s explanation for the upward variance and raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and considered whether the district court failed to state adequate reasons for the above-Guidelines revocation sentence and, if so, whether the error warranted correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain a 14-month upward variance from the Guidelines for a revocation sentence | Lorenzo: court gave no sufficient reasons for imposing sentence above Guidelines; thus explanation was inadequate | Government: even if explanation was lacking, the sentence was within statutory maximum and record supports fairness given nature of violations | Court: Clear error in failing to state reasons, but error did not warrant plain-error reversal because sentence was within statutory max and record supported fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard where issue not preserved)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework and when appellate courts should correct forfeited error)
- United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (failure to state reasons for an outside-Guidelines sentence is clear and obvious error)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement that district court’s explanation demonstrate consideration of parties’ arguments and a reasoned basis)
- United States v. Brown, 826 F.3d 835 (5th Cir. 2016) (record can show an outside-Guidelines sentence was nevertheless fair)
- United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain-error correction reserved for rare, egregious, or conscience-shocking errors)