United States v. Richard Fuentes
906 F.3d 322
5th Cir.2018Background
- In 2003 Fuentes pled guilty to possession of a firearm as an offender with three prior violent-felony convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); he was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and five years supervised release, which included a sex-offender-treatment condition.
- Fuentes pursued collateral attacks (§ 2255) challenging sentencing and counsel; those motions were dismissed.
- Supervised release began March 2016; probation officers alleged Fuentes repeatedly refused to complete or participate in a sex-offender evaluation and treatment as directed.
- At the revocation hearing Fuentes denied the violations; probation officer and counselor testified he refused to sign releases and answer evaluation questions, preventing completion of the evaluation.
- The district court revoked supervised release and sentenced Fuentes to the statutory maximum five years imprisonment (no further supervised release). Fuentes appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Fuentes's Argument | Government / District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether five-year revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Fuentes: Johnson v. United States voided ACCA residual-clause enhancement; without ACCA enhancement original max would be 10 years and revocation max 2 years, so five years is excessive given he’s already served long terms | Gov/District Ct: revocation within statutory maximum; sex-offender condition could not be reimposed but sentence lawful; no plain error shown | Court affirmed: sentence not plain error; not plainly unreasonable under existing law |
| Whether Willis requires vacatur where earlier sentencing defect lengthened revocation exposure | Fuentes: relies on Willis—a second revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable there—so analogous relief should follow | Gov: Willis was narrow and fact-specific; differences here (nature of defect, lack of agreed error, intervening Supreme Court change) make it inapplicable | Court: Willis does not control; distinctions mean error was not clear or obvious |
| Whether the alleged ACCA defect is "clear or obvious" for plain-error review | Fuentes: Johnson retroactivity (Welch) supports that ACCA enhancement was improper | Gov: effect of Johnson on Fuentes’s specific Texas indecency conviction is not settled; would require extension of precedent | Court: not plain error because the required extension of precedent makes the alleged error not "obvious" |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred in imposing the statutory maximum revocation sentence | Fuentes: implied procedural/unreasonable error by imposing max given his served time | Gov/District Ct: considered relevant factors; imposed lawful statutory maximum | Held: no significant procedural error shown; substantive-reasonableness inquiry does not establish plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (declaring Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2009) (vacating a second consecutive revocation sentence as plainly unreasonable in narrow, fact-specific circumstances)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (explaining plain-error review standard)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (distinguishing substantive-reasonableness inquiry from plain-error inquiry)