United States v. Nathan Oliva
694 F. App'x 968
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nathan Oliva pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child and was sentenced to 365 months’ imprisonment.
- The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory range was 235–293 months.
- Oliva did not object in the district court to the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance; appellate review is therefore for plain error.
- The district court adopted the PSR, considered Oliva’s mitigation and allocution, and explained it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- The court imposed an upward variance based on Oliva’s extensive criminal history, need for punishment and deterrence, and protection of the public.
- Oliva appealed, arguing the 365-month sentence was substantively unreasonable and that a guidelines sentence would have been sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward variance to 365 months is substantively unreasonable | Oliva: the variance is excessive; a within-guidelines sentence would suffice under § 3553(a) | Government/District Court: the upward variance was justified by Oliva’s history, need for punishment, deterrence, and public protection | Affirmed: no plain error; the upward variance was fact-specific and consistent with § 3553(a) |
| Whether plain-error review permits reversal absent an objection below | Oliva: contends sentence substantively unreasonable despite lack of objection | Government: appellate review limited to plain-error standards because no district-court objection | Affirmed: Oliva failed to show clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights under Puckett; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district court must make individualized § 3553(a) assessment; appellate review of variance reasonableness)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (consider totality of circumstances when reviewing non-guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Chandler, 732 F.3d 434 (when a non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) factors reviewed for abuse)
- United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713 (upholding substantial upward variances)