United States v. Jose Macias Lozano, 962 F.3d 773

Jose Alfredo Macias Lozano, a Mexican national brought to the U.S. as an infant, was deported after a Texas felony conviction and later reentered and committed North Carolina felonies.
In Dec. 2011 while in state custody on a NC drug charge, he was federally charged with illegal reentry after an aggravated-felony conviction (8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)); he never appeared on that federal charge and was deported in June 2013 without knowing about it.
Lozano reentered the U.S. in 2013; he was arrested on the still-pending 2011 federal charge in May 2018, provided stale information to law enforcement, and pleaded guilty in Sept. 2018.
At sentencing his Guidelines range was 63–78 months; he sought a 27-month sentence (downward variance) based on the government’s delay, his limited cooperation, and cultural assimilation; the government agreed some variance was warranted.
The district court varied downward and imposed 51 months; Lozano appealed claiming (1) Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation from the 6+ year delay and (2) procedural unreasonableness because the court supposedly failed to address his non-frivolous mitigating arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lozano)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Lozano’s 6+ year delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial	Delay between charge (2011) and arrest/plea (2018) violated speedy-trial right and warrants dismissal	Lozano waived the claim by pleading guilty; alternatively, even on plain-error review the Barker factors do not show prejudice	Court: Claim waived by guilty plea; even if not waived, plain-error review fails — Barker factors (assertion, prejudice) weigh against relief; no speedy-trial violation
Whether sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failing to address non-frivolous mitigation (delay, assistance, assimilation, criminal history)	District court did not adequately consider or explain rejection of Lozano’s mitigating arguments for a greater downward variance	District court heard and considered the arguments, granted some variance, and adequately explained why it declined the larger variance	Court: No procedural error; sentencing explanation and analysis were sufficient and within discretion

Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (distinguishes claims that survive guilty plea from those waived; plea does not bar claims attacking government’s power to criminalize conduct)
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (guilty plea does not bar claims challenging the very initiation of prosecution)
Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (guilty plea does not bar double-jeopardy claim precluding prosecution)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test: length, reason, assertion, prejudice)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (government negligence causing long delay can give rise to presumption of prejudice)
Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973) (dismissal is remedy for certain speedy-trial violations)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentencing court must provide individualized, reasoned explanation of sentence)
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (district court must address non-frivolous reasons for a different sentence)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (procedural-reasonableness review; sufficiency of sentencing explanation)
United States v. Goossens, 84 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 1996) (government has broad discretion to move for downward departure for substantial assistance)