United States v. Jose Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d 345

Defendant Jose Humberto Solano‑Rosales, a Mexican citizen, was removed from the U.S. multiple times and convicted three times of domestic violence (one felony). He repeatedly reentered the U.S. after removals.
In 2013 he was indicted for returning to the U.S. without authorization after removal following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1); he pled guilty.
The PSR initially applied a 16‑level "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), producing a 41–51 month range; the district court sustained an objection and instead applied a 4‑level felony enhancement yielding an 8–14 month range.
The district court imposed an upward variance to 18 months custody and three years supervised release, citing repeated reentries, a pattern of domestic violence, and the need for specific deterrence, public protection, and just punishment.
On appeal Solano‑Rosales argued (1) the supervised‑release term was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not address U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) (which generally recommends no supervised release for deportable aliens), and (2) the upward variance to 18 months was substantively unreasonable. He had completed his custodial term and been deported before briefing finished.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Solano‑Rosales)	Defendant's Argument (Government/Appellee)	Held
Whether imposition of 3‑year supervised release was procedurally unreasonable for failing to acknowledge U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)	District court erred by not discussing § 5D1.1(c) and its commentary, depriving record of adequate explanation	District court adequately explained supervised release on record by citing specific deterrence tied to defendant's rapid returns and criminal history	Court: District court erred in not explicitly addressing § 5D1.1(c) but the error did not affect substantial rights; supervised release affirmed
Whether the 18‑month upward variance is substantively unreasonable	Variance disproportionately exceeds the 8–14 month range and improperly relies on impermissible or insufficient factors (e.g., retributive "just punishment")	Variance is modest (4 months above range) and supported by specific deterrence, public protection, and defendant’s recidivism	Court: Variance not substantively unreasonable; sentence affirmed
Mootness of challenge to completed custodial term	Appeal of custodial sentence is moot because defendant completed imprisonment and was deported	Appeal is not moot if remand could affect supervised‑release term still subject to district court discretion	Court: Appeal not moot because district court could reduce/eliminate supervised release on remand; merits considered

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing reasonableness standard and guidelines as starting point)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Inman, 666 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2012) (requiring district court to explain supervised release decisions)
United States v. Bernal‑Aveja, 414 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2005) (Shepard/§2L1.2 context for prior‑conviction enhancements)
United States v. Presto, 498 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2007) (single consideration of factors may cover both custody and supervised release if explanation embraces both)
United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2007) (record must show court considered and rejected defendant’s sentencing arguments)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for plain‑error affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Maken, 510 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2007) (appeal of completed custody not moot if supervised release could be affected)
United States v. Hussein, 675 F.2d 114 (6th Cir. 1982) (characterizing § 1326 as malum prohibitum offense)