United States v. Jose Garcia, 683 F. App'x 203

Background

Defendant Jose Jimenez Garcia convicted of illegal reentry by an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and sentenced to 48 months.
At sentencing defense counsel urged consideration of a then-proposed Guidelines amendment (Amendment 802 to USSG § 2L1.2) that would have lowered Garcia’s offense level.
Counsel calculated that under the proposed amendment Garcia’s Guidelines range would be 24–30 months (offense level 13).
The district court imposed 48 months but did not explicitly state whether it considered applying the proposed amendment or explain why it rejected that argument.
Garcia appealed, arguing procedural error for the court’s failure to address his nonfrivolous request to apply the not-yet-effective Guideline amendment.
Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding the district court committed procedural error and that error was not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia preserved his claim that the court should consider the proposed Guidelines amendment	Garcia contends counsel’s discussion and specific calculations sufficiently alerted the court and preserved the claim for abuse-of-discretion review	Government contends Garcia failed to preserve the issue, so only plain-error review applies	Court held Garcia preserved the claim; review is for abuse of discretion
Whether the district court procedurally erred by not addressing Garcia’s nonfrivolous argument to apply the proposed amendment	Garcia argues the court was required to address and explain rejection of the argument under § 3553(a) principles	Government notes the court discussed relevant sentencing factors but did not explicitly address the proposed amendment	Court held the district court committed procedural error by failing to articulate consideration/rejection of the argument
Whether the procedural error was harmless	Garcia argues the lower Guidelines range (24–30 months) shows consideration could have affected the sentence	Government argues overall sentencing rationale and factors discussed justify the 48-month term regardless	Court held the error was not harmless because the lower projected Guidelines range could have affected the sentence
Remedy	Garcia seeks resentencing or remand for reconsideration under the amendment	Government opposes if the court’s rationale suffices without explicit treatment of the amendment	Court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings; expressed no view on the ultimate sentence

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (federal sentencing procedure and reasonableness review)
United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2016) (harmless error at sentencing)
United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416 (4th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing issues)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (how to preserve sentencing objections without formulaic objections)
United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2015) (district court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2015) (district court should address nonfrivolous arguments for a different sentence)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (appellate review limited to reasons articulated by district court)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must indicate it considered parties’ arguments)
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error standard for sentencing)