United States v. James Alsante, 812 F.3d 544

Alsante pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under federal law.
At sentencing, the government introduced evidence of pending state charges for sexual offenses against a minor.
The district court reserved on upward departure but granted an upward variance to 54 months.
Evidence included testimony from the minor’s alleged victim and her mother, plus defense counter-witnesses.
Alsante argued the procedure violated due process and the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights.
The panel held the sentencing procedure was fundamentally fair and did not violate those rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pending state charges evidence at sentencing violates due process	Alsante argues it burdens defense in state case.	Alsante relies on due process protections at sentencing and self-incrimination limits.	No due process violation; sentencing may consider broad, reliable information.
Whether self-incrimination rights are violated by evidence of uncharged conduct at sentencing	Alsante contends pressure to rebut could coerce testimony affecting state case.	Court did not compel testimony; longstanding circuit law permits such evidence.	No Fifth Amendment violation; silence/testimony pressures are not compelled testimony.
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable	Upward variance necessary to protect the public given history and conduct.	Sentence exceeds appropriate range and is not adequately tied to factors.	Sentence is substantively reasonable given the factors cited.

Williams v. New York, 337 F.3d 241 (U.S. 1949) (broad sentencing evidence permissible; due process not trial-like)
United States v. Gatewood, 230 F.3d 186 (6th Cir. 2000) (fundamentally fair sentencing hearing; reliability of information)
United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2010) (evidentiary rules at sentencing differ from trial protections)
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1971) (recognizes difficult judgment calls in criminal process)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (accepts government urging in plea and sentencing contexts; not coercive)
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (permits certain coercive disclosures in institutional settings)
Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1998) (limits on self-incrimination in parole/reward contexts)
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970) (parole/penalty evidentiary considerations; not trial protections)
Marshall, 719 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1983) (uncharged conduct considered consistent with sentencing norms)
Graham-Wright, United States v., 715 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2013) (evidentiary inclusiveness aids appropriate sentence)