United States v. Jeremy Martinez
676 F. App'x 354
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jeremy Lee Martinez appealed consecutive 10-month and 14-month revocation sentences (total 24 months) imposed after supervised-release violations.
- He raised, for the first time on appeal, procedural- and substantive-reasonableness challenges to those revocation sentences.
- Martinez also challenged the need for a post-sentencing objection to preserve appellate review and disputed the presumption of reasonableness for consecutive within-guidelines revocation sentences.
- The Government and the district court relied on Martinez’s prior supervised-release revocations and on-the-record mitigation argument; each revocation sentence fell within the advisory Guidelines range.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the unpreserved arguments for plain error and affirmed, finding no clear, prejudicial error or threat to the proceedings’ integrity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation requirement for appellate review | Post-sentencing objection should not be required to preserve sentencing error | Whitelaw forecloses the challenge; post-sentencing objection is required | Forfeited; argument foreclosed by precedent |
| Presumption of reasonableness for consecutive, within-Guidelines revocation sentences | No presumption because §7B1.1 policy statements lack empirical basis | Within-Guidelines consecutive revocation sentences are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness | Forfeited and foreclosed by precedent; presumption applies |
| Procedural reasonableness / district court explanation sufficiency | District court gave only cursory explanation and failed to consider §3553(a) factors | Lesser explanation is needed for within-Guidelines revocation sentences; court implicitly considered §3553(a) via arguments heard | No reversible plain error; explanation adequate given advisory range |
| Substantive reasonableness of combined 24-month sentence | Total sentence is excessive and greater than necessary under §3553(a) | Each sentence is within Guidelines and permitted to run consecutively; policy supports consecutive sentences | Sentence substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (preservation and review principles for revocation sentences)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (lesser explanation required for within-Guidelines revocation sentences)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines-based revocation sentences)
- United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006) (Guidelines policy supports consecutive revocation sentences)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness may be rebutted but was not here)