United States v. Mendoza-Lopez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3834
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mendoza-Lopez pled guilty to unlawful re-entry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- PSR calculated total offense level 21, criminal history category V, advisory range 70–87 months; PSR recommended 70 months.
- He moved for downward departure under § 4A1.3(b)(1) and for variance; district court denied both.
- At sentencing, the court stated its intent to sentence within the Guidelines range and invited Mendoza-Lopez and counsel to address where within the range the sentence should fall.
- Mendoza-Lopez allocuted, apologizing and citing family needs; the court sentenced him to 70 months after considering various factors.
- Mendoza-Lopez argues the court violated his right of allocution by restricting discussion to a location within the Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court violate allocution by inviting only scope within the range? | Mendoza-Lopez | Mendoza-Lopez | Yes, plain error; but no reversible prejudice |
| Is the error reversible given the record as a whole? | Mendoza-Lopez | United States | No remand; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Landeros-Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2010) (prematurely adjudging sentence violates allocution rights)
- United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2008) (court must listen to mitigating arguments; cannot forbid arguments in allocution)
- United States v. Rausch, 638 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard for allocution; prejudice presumptions)
- United States v. Thornburgh, 645 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error analysis for allocution)
- United States v. Meacham, 567 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2009) (consideration of mitigators in sentencing)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (standard for evaluating sentencing-related errors)