United States v. Roberto Lara-Diaz
697 F. App'x 331
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Roberto Carlos Lara-Diaz pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b).
- District court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 30 months imprisonment.
- Lara-Diaz did not object in district court to procedural issues, so appellate review is for plain error.
- Lara-Diaz argued the court failed to give Rule 32(h) notice of an intended upward departure and denied adequate allocution by interrupting defense counsel.
- He also argued the court impermissibly relied on a bare arrest record (sexual abuse arrest) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable for double-counting and overreliance on the arrest.
- The Government conceded the Rule 32(h) notice error but disputed prejudice; the presentence report contained a fuller factual account of the arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Lara-Diaz's Argument | Government/Court Response | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give Rule 32(h) notice of upward departure was plain error | District court erred by not giving notice | Government conceded error but said no showing of prejudice | Error was clear but defendant failed to show it affected substantial rights (no prejudice shown) |
| Whether defendant was denied adequate allocution | Court interrupted counsel and limited allocution | Court provided meaningful opportunity to speak; Rule 32(i)(4)(A) satisfied | No allocution error; defendant had meaningful opportunity to speak |
| Whether sentencing relied impermissibly on a bare arrest record | Court relied on arrest for sexual abuse without conviction | PSR contained an undisputed factual account with adequate indicia of reliability | No error; court could consider the reliable factual account in PSR |
| Whether the upward departure was substantively unreasonable (double-counting/overreliance) | Sentence double-counted guideline factors and unduly relied on arrest | District court may accord extra weight to circumstances and advanced § 3553(a) goals | Substantive sentence reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (standard for plain-error review)
- United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (burden to show prejudice from Rule 32(h) notice error)
- United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769 (requirements for meaningful allocution under Rule 32)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (when court may rely on PSR factual account versus bare arrest)
- United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415 (PSR reliability and use of arrest/conviction information)
- United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (district court discretion to give extra weight to guideline-considered factors)
- United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (standards for upward departures and review for abuse of discretion)