United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148

Gutierrez pled guilty to escaping from a halfway house after prior offenses and was sentenced to 50 months non-Guidelines sentence for a second escape conviction.
His advisory Guidelines range for the second escape was 15–21 months; Gutierrez urged a 15-month sentence due to health issues and drug addiction.
The district court found the Guidelines range inappropriate and imposed a 50-month term, citing serious criminal history and repeated failures to abide by confinement terms.
Gutierrez argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for not applying § 4A1.3 departure methodology and for inadequate explanation, and that it was substantively unreasonable given health problems.
The court conducted a lengthy § 3553(a) analysis, acknowledged health issues, but treated them as factors supporting a longer sentence to deter further crime and protect the public.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, ruling no plain error in failure to compute a § 4A1.3 departure before a non-Guidelines sentence, adequate explanation, and overall reasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 4A1.3 departure must be calculated before a non-Guidelines sentence	Gutierrez argues must compute upward departure under § 4A1.3 first	Gutierrez contends district court failed to apply § 4A1.3 methodology	No plain error; Mejia-Huerta controls on departure methodology
Whether district court adequately explained the outside-Guidelines sentence	Gutierrez contends explanation was insufficient	Gutierrez asserts the reasons were not adequately stated	Explanation was sufficient for meaningful appellate review
Whether the non-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable given health issues	Gutierrez argues health problems require significant weight and could amount to life expectancy concerns	Gutierrez's health and drug issues do not outweigh the § 3553(a) factors justifying substantial departure	Sentence is reasonable; district court properly balanced § 3553(a) factors

United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2007) (departure methodology not required before non-Guidelines sentence)
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (procedural steps for non-Guidelines sentence; does not require § 4A1.3 departure calculation)
United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2005) (three-part test for reasonableness of non-Guidelines sentence)
United States v. Gutierrez-Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2009) (departure methodology when applying § 4A1.3; cautions about dicta in related footnotes)
United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1993 (en banc)) (pre-Booker context; consideration of successive criminal history categories under § 4A1.3)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework; standard of review for sentences)
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (upward departures and within-range variance guidance )
United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding substantial upward variance within appellate review)
United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470 (6th Cir. 2006) (cited for departure methodology context)