United States v. Jose Servellon, 534 F. App'x 252

Servellon, appearing pro se, appeals from a final judgment on his illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. §1326) and supervised release revocation (18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(3)).
Sentences: 50 months for illegal reentry; 10 months consecutive for revocation; both imposed after a joint hearing.
District court considered the §3553(a) factors, allocution, and defense request for a lower end of the guidelines range.
Servellon argues the §2L1.2 guideline overstates the offense severity and ignores benign motives for returning.
He did not raise these issues in district court; our review is for plain error.
The court affirms, holding the 50-month sentence within the properly calculated guidelines and the 10-month revocation sentence reasonable and properly explained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the illegal reentry sentence is reasonable under §3553(a).	Servellon contends the sentence is greater than necessary.	The district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors within an advisory range determined by §2L1.2.	Within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; no plain error found.
Whether plain error review applies to forfeited sentencing challenges.	Argues for appellate scrutiny of sentence on unpreserved error.	Waived error doctrine yields plain error standard; argument foreclosed.	Plain error standard applied; Servellon fails to show an error that affects substantial rights.
Whether the revocation sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable given consecutiveness.	Consecutive 10-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable and under-explained.	Consecutive sentence within policy statements and statutory maximum; no need for lengthy explanation.	Sentence deemed reasonable; no need for additional explanation; consecutive revocation affirmed.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (district court must consider §3553(a) factors)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness presumption within guidelines; need for explanation)
Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error review requires impact on substantial rights)
Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejects empiricism-based objections to §2L1.2)
Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2006) (rejects double counting and related defenses to §2L1.2)
Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review in revocation sentencing context)
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (explains that minimal explanation can suffice for revocation sentences)
Ramirez, 264 F. App’x 454 (5th Cir. 2008) (supports within-guidelines revocation sentences running consecutively)
Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (reaffirms reasonableness of within-guidelines sentences)