United States v. Glen Mejia
703 F. App'x 339
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Glen Mejia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) and admitted two supervised-release violations tied to a prior 2010 illegal reentry conviction.
- No plea agreement; combined sentencing and revocation hearing was held.
- At the hearing the district court revoked supervised release and imposed concurrent sentences: 57 months (illegal reentry) and 12 months (revocation), both at the bottom of the Guidelines ranges.
- Mejia contends on appeal the district court interrupted him during allocution and did not allow him to finish mitigating remarks.
- He did not object at the hearing; appellate review is therefore for plain error.
- The district court had allowed Mejia to speak, Mejia expressed remorse, and the transcript records a final remark of “It’s just that.” The court commented afterward and imposed the sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated Mejia’s right of allocution by cutting him off | Mejia: court interrupted him and prevented additional mitigating statements | Gov: Mejia’s final words showed he was finished; counsel’s silence supports no interruption | Court: record ambiguous; Mejia failed to show a clear or obvious error under plain-error review |
| Whether any allocution error affected Mejia’s substantial rights | Mejia: would have presented additional mitigating facts that could reduce sentence | Gov: Mejia did not specify what additional mitigating facts would have changed the outcome | Court: Mejia did not identify specific mitigating information; record does not show likely prejudice |
| Whether this court should correct any plain error in its discretion | Mejia: asks for resentencing if right of allocution was violated | Gov: even if error existed, discretion should not be exercised given record | Court: declines to exercise discretion; no miscarriage of justice shown; affirms sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error remand practice for allocution violations)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (standard for plain-error review)
- United States v. Chavez-Perez, 844 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant must specify omitted mitigating information to show prejudice)
- Magwood v. United States, 445 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2006) (discretionary denial of correction despite plain error when no miscarriage of justice shown)