United States v. Jose Flores-Mejia, 531 F. App'x 222

Flores-Mejia, a Mexican citizen with extensive prior criminal history, has been deported multiple times.
On April 10, 2012, he pled guilty to one count of reentry after deportation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with Guidelines range 77–96 months (criminal history VI, offense level 21, 16-level violence enhancement).
In his sentencing memorandum, he urged a below-Guidelines sentence based on two meetings with Government agents where he purportedly provided information about a Newark homicide and a prostitution ring; the Government later indicated the homicide information was solved and the prostitution information was contradicted and not pursued.
At sentencing in July 2012, the District Court addressed numerous arguments for a lower sentence but did not address Flores-Mejia’s cooperation argument beyond a bare acknowledgment; defense and Government proffered cooperation information, and defense urged consideration of those actions.
The District Court sentenced Flores-Mejia to 78 months; there was no contemporaneous objection or explicit ruling on the cooperation argument, and the issue was raised on appeal.
The Third Circuit concluded the decision was bound by Sevilla to review for meaningful consideration of the colorable cooperation argument and vacated the sentence for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to address cooperation argument requires remand under Sevilla	Flores-Mejia argues district court failed to meaningfully consider cooperation grounds.	Flores-Mejia's position would be reviewed under Sevilla's meaningful consideration standard.	Remand required; Sevilla governs.
Whether Sevilla bindingly governs three-judge panel review	Sevilla applies and preserves the claim without a new objection.	Sevilla should be revisited or overruled by the full court.	Sevilla binding; panel cannot overrule it.
Whether Rita v. United States conflicts with Sevilla	Rita supports more detailed consideration and is not incompatible with Sevilla.	Rita undermines Sevilla's reasoning.	Rita distinguished; Sevilla remains controlling for this issue.

United States v. Sevilla, 541 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2008) (meaningful consideration standard for § 3553(a) arguments not explicitly addressed)
United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (objection preserved if meritorious issue raised during sentencing)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (court's questions and summary of arguments; detailed explanation not always required)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (preservation preferred to give district court opportunity to correct errors)
United States v. Russell, 564 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2009) (applies plain error review where defendant did not raise at sentencing)
United States v. Vazquez-Lebron, 582 F.3d 443 (3d Cir. 2009) (applies plain error review in similar contexts)
Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (U.S. 2011) (resentencing considerations; post-sentencing rehabilitation may be considered)