United States v. Jose Ignacio Hernandez-Guzman, 708 F. App'x 907

Defendant Jose Ignacio Hernandez-Guzman was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) for being an alien unlawfully in the U.S. in possession of a firearm and received a 20‑month sentence.
On appeal he challenged the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
He raised specific procedural complaints: district court comments about deportation, alleged failure to address his traumatic/violent past as mitigation, reliance on a factual finding that he gestured as if willing to shoot, and imposition of supervised release contrary to Guidelines guidance.
He did not preserve some procedural objections in the district court, so the panel reviewed those for plain error; substantive reasonableness was reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The district court explained it reviewed § 3553(a) factors and gave reasons for a modest upward variance and for imposing supervised release based on community danger.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error on procedural claims and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Issue	Hernandez-Guzman’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
District court comments about deportation status	Comments showed improper consideration of deportation policy and thus procedural error	Comments were not plain error and did not affect outcome	No plain error; observation about uncertain deportation not reversible
Failure to address mitigating evidence (traumatic/violent past)	Court failed to meaningfully consider mitigation evidence	Court heard arguments, referenced § 3553(a), and explained its reasons	No plain error; district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors
Reliance on allegedly erroneous factual finding (gesture showing willingness to shoot)	Finding was clearly erroneous and improperly influenced sentence	Finding had record support and was open to reasonable interpretation	No plain error; factual finding was plausible and supported by record
Imposition of supervised release despite Guidelines saying it "ordinarily should not"	Court erred by not explaining deviation from Guidelines policy	Court based supervised release on danger to community as authorized by statute	No plain error; supervised release justified by community danger under § 3583(c)
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Sentence was substantively unreasonable given circumstances	District court considered § 3553(a), was in best position to weigh facts; sentence modest	Affirmed: sentence substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion

United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (plain-error review of unpreserved sentencing objections)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (four‑part plain‑error test)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct.) (plain‑error framework)
United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.) (effect of procedural error on sentencing outcome)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (sentencing explanation and § 3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Fitch, 659 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.) (standard for when factual findings are plainly erroneous)
United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.) (factual‑finding review standard)
United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court on factual determinations at sentencing)
Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (judicial notice of documents not subject to reasonable dispute)