United States v. Henry Steiger, 99 F.4th 1316

Henry Steiger was serving federal probation for wire fraud and conspiracy convictions, with an original guideline recommendation of 0-6 months.
While on probation, Steiger was convicted in state court of second-degree murder for killing the mother of his infant child.
The government moved to revoke Steiger’s probation based on the new state conviction, and the district court agreed, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Steiger committed the murder.
At the revocation hearing, the district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently with his state life sentence, without explicitly explaining its reasons for the upward variance from the guidelines.
Steiger did not contemporaneously object to the lack of explanation and later argued on appeal that the absence of reasons warranted automatic reversal under prior Eleventh Circuit precedent.
The case was taken en banc to reconsider the "per se rule of reversal" for these kinds of sentencing errors and clarify the proper standard of review.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Should sentences imposed without explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) be per se reversed?	Steiger: Yes; failure to state reasons requires automatic reversal regardless of objection.	Government: No; such errors should be reviewed for plain error when not objected to, which is the national standard.	Court overrules per se rule; unobjected-to errors reviewed for plain error only.
Did the district court’s failure to explain the upward variance constitute plain error?	The lack of explanation foreclosed meaningful appellate review and affected substantial rights.	No plain error; the sentencing record made the district court's reasons abundantly clear to all parties.	No plain error; record was clear, so substantial rights were not affected.
What is the proper framework for reviewing unpreserved § 3553(c) errors?	Such errors should result in reversal for lack of specific reasons.	Review should be for plain error, asking if the omission impaired meaningful review.	Plain error review applies to unpreserved § 3553(c) errors.
Does a clear record render harmless a lack of explicit sentencing reasons?	A technical violation still warrants remand.	If reasons are obvious from the record, there is no need for remand.	If the record is clear about the reasons, reversal is not warranted.

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (sentencing courts may consider conduct established by a preponderance even if acquitted by a jury)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing explanations must allow for meaningful appellate review; adequacy of explanation context-dependent)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (judge’s explanation sufficient where record is clear; more needed for departures)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (plain error doctrine: four-part test including effect on substantial rights)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (structural errors versus harmless error doctrine in criminal process)