United States v. Guillermo Horta-Alvarez, 712 F. App'x 913

Defendant Guillermo Horta-Alvarez pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥28 grams of cocaine base; PSR and proffer showed purchases and sales of crack cocaine to fund his addiction.
PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 77–96 months (Offense Level 21, Criminal History VI); no guideline objections were lodged and the court adopted that range.
At sentencing Horta-Alvarez (age 71) requested a variance to the 60-month statutory minimum based on age, background, and severe addiction; the government sought the low end of the Guidelines.
The district court discussed § 3553(a) factors, referenced defendant’s extensive criminal history, and twice stated that defendant “received and processed” cocaine into crack cocaine for distribution—a fact not supported by the record.
The court denied the full requested variance but granted a 10-month downward variance, sentencing Horta-Alvarez to 67 months; defendant objected post‑sentence to the court’s finding that he processed crack cocaine.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court relied on a clearly erroneous factual finding and that the error was not harmless because it was one of the articulated reasons for denying the full variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Horta-Alvarez)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact (that defendant processed cocaine into crack) in sentencing	Court relied on a fact unsupported by the record; that finding is clearly erroneous	Court did not actually find processing occurred; even if it did, the finding did not affect the sentence	Court held the record shows the district court made or at least implied the erroneous finding and that it was clearly erroneous
Whether reliance on that erroneous fact was harmless	Error affected the decision to deny full variance; not harmless	The true basis was defendant's recidivism, so any erroneous factual reference was immaterial	Court held error was not shown harmless because processing was one of two reasons given for denying full variance
Whether remand is required when a district court bases sentence on unsupported facts	Remand necessary when error may have influenced sentence	Only required if error affected selection of sentence	Court remanded for resentencing because it could not say with certainty the error was harmless
Standard of review for sentencing procedural error	N/A (challenge by defendant)	N/A	Sentence reviewed for procedural reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion; clearly erroneous factual findings render sentence procedurally unreasonable

United States v. Thompson, 702 F.3d 604 (11th Cir. 2012) (sets out deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
United States v. Nagel, 835 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2016) (procedural unreasonableness includes selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts must adequately explain chosen sentence and consider § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Hill, 783 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2015) (burden on challenger to show sentence is procedurally unreasonable)
United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding a sentence unreasonable when based on facts not in the record)
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (harmless-error framework when a district court misapplies the Guidelines)
United States v. Kendrick, 22 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 1994) (remand required unless record shows error did not affect sentencing decision)