United States v. Rigoberto Rodriguez, 668 F. App'x 114

Rigoberto Rodriguez was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment after a second revocation of supervised release.
He did not object to the revocation sentence in district court; he had asked for a within-guidelines sentence.
On appeal Rodriguez challenged the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence, arguing the court relied on impermissible factors.
He argued the court improperly based the sentence on the need to "promote respect for the law" and on punishing past criminal behavior.
The district court referenced Rodriguez’s criminal history and SR violations and said the 24-month term appropriately accounted for the § 3553(a) factors in a revocation context.
The court of appeals reviewed for plain error because Rodriguez failed to object at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable	Rodriguez: sentence based on impermissible factors — promoting respect for the law and punishing past crimes	Government: court considered proper § 3553(a) factors in revocation context; remarks were lawful and tied to history and violations	No plain error; sentence affirmed

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir.) (preserving plain-error review when defendant does not object to sentence)
Cardenas v. Thaler, 651 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.) (panels cannot overrule prior panel precedent absent en banc or Supreme Court decision)
Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.) (precedent-binding rule among panels)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir.) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review in revocation cases and plain-error framework)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir.) (discussing impermissible reliance on promoting respect for the law in sentencing)
United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270 (5th Cir.) (failure to object at sentencing limits appellate relief)