United States v. Roberto Rodriguez, 694 F. App'x 304

Roberto Rene Rodriguez appealed a 30‑month prison term imposed after revocation of supervised release.
He argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court considered § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors (seriousness, respect for law, just punishment).
Rodriguez did not object at the revocation hearing, so the court applied plain‑error review on appeal.
Fifth Circuit precedent bars use of § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors in revocation sentencings; district courts must rely on the factors authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583 and related § 3553 provisions.
The district court expressly disclaimed relying on § 3553(a)(2)(A) and the panel found the court’s dominant considerations were permissible factors (e.g., nature of the offense, public protection, deterrence).
The panel concluded the 30‑month sentence (within statutory maximum) was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court improperly relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors at revocation sentencing	Rodriguez: court considered impermissible factors (seriousness, respect for law, punishment) making sentence procedurally unreasonable	Govt: court expressly disclaimed reliance and relied on permissible revocation factors	Court: No plain error—district court did not primarily rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors
Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable	Rodriguez: improper factors influenced sentence length, making it substantively unreasonable	Govt: sentence within statutory range and driven by proper factors; no imbalance shown	Court: Sentence substantively reasonable; no significant weight given to improper factors
Standard of review given lack of objection	Rodriguez: acknowledges failure to object; asks court to review reasonableness	Govt: plain‑error review applies under circuit precedent	Court: Applied plain‑error review and found no reversible error
Whether 30‑month term exceeded permissible discretion on revocation	Rodriguez: challenges length as unreasonable	Govt: within statutory maximum and justified by permissible considerations	Court: Within statutory maximum and reasonable; affirmed

United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards for substantive unreasonableness on revocation)
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain‑error review when defendant fails to object to sentencing)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors are not appropriate grounds for revocation sentences)
United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing permissible § 3553 factors used in revocation sentencing)