United States v. Jose Flores-Mejia
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13521
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Jose Luis Flores-Mejia pled guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) with a long criminal history; Guidelines range 77–96 months; district court imposed 78 months.
- Defense argued for a downward variance based on cooperation (information about a homicide and prostitution ring); government disputed the value of the cooperation.
- At sentencing the court heard arguments, asked “Anything else?” and then pronounced sentence; defense did not lodge a post‑pronouncement objection that the court failed to meaningfully consider the cooperation argument.
- Flores‑Mejia appealed claiming procedural unreasonableness (failure to give meaningful consideration to mitigation); a prior panel (Sevilla) had allowed preservation without re‑raising after sentence.
- The en banc Third Circuit adopted a new rule requiring contemporaneous objection after sentence is imposed to preserve procedural‑reasonableness claims for plain‑error avoidance, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing (but applied Sevilla to cases before this decision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether merely presenting a mitigation argument at sentencing preserves a procedural‑reasonableness challenge on appeal | Flores‑Mejia: initial presentation of cooperation argument (in papers and at hearing) suffices; no need to re‑object after sentence | Government: failure to object after sentence left issue unpreserved and subject to plain‑error review | Court: A defendant must object after the sentence is imposed to preserve a claim that the court failed to meaningfully consider a sentencing argument; Sevilla superseded going forward |
| Standard of review for unpreserved sentencing procedural errors | Flores‑Mejia: urged review for abuse of discretion or de novo because argument was presented | Government: plain‑error review applies because there was no post‑pronouncement objection | Court: Unpreserved procedural objections are reviewed for plain error; but rule not applied retroactively to defendants sentenced before this opinion |
| Whether the district court gave "meaningful consideration" to the cooperation argument | Flores‑Mejia: court’s colloquy and prior briefing showed consideration warranting a variance | Government: argued cooperation lacked sufficient law‑enforcement value to justify variance; court’s general colloquy was adequate | Court: On the record, the court’s “Okay, thanks. Anything else?” did not show meaningful consideration; merits warrant resentencing under Sevilla standard for pre‑opinion cases |
| Whether the new preservation rule conflicts with Fed. R. Crim. P. 51 | Flores‑Mejia/dissent: Rule 51(b) allows preservation by informing court when ruling is "sought"; re‑raising after sentence is not required | Majority: contemporaneous post‑sentence objection promotes correction, prevents sandbagging, and aligns with most circuits | Court: Majority adopts objection requirement post‑pronouncement; dissent argues this conflicts with Rule 51 and stare decisis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sevilla, 541 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2008) (prior Third Circuit panel holding that re‑raising after sentence was not required)
- United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three‑step post‑Booker sentencing framework)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (contemporaneous objection doctrine and plain‑error framework)
- United States v. Begin, 696 F.3d 405 (3d Cir. 2012) (district court must acknowledge and respond to properly presented sentencing arguments)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (reasonableness review of sentencing post‑Booker)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elements of plain error)
- United States v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2006) (application of Olano in this circuit)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (requiring contemporaneous objection to preserve procedural sentencing claims)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (declining to require post‑sentence re‑assertion in all cases)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review requires record showing the court considered parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (precedent addressed in Sevilla panel decision)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (district court best positioned to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (encouraging objections to help district courts meet sentencing obligations)