United States v. Sandra Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012

Rivera pleaded guilty in 2001 to possession with intent to distribute and received 121 months; after release she was deported and subject to five years’ supervised release.
Rivera violated supervised release by committing new-law violations: murder (state no-contest plea; 28-year state sentence) and illegal reentry (she was not charged with reentry); she also violated a special condition prohibiting illegal reentry.
Probation calculated a revocation Guidelines range of 24–30 months; the magistrate judge recommended a within-Guidelines 28-month revocation sentence to run consecutive to the state sentence.
At the district-court review hearing, the court repeatedly emphasized the brutality of the murder and the inadequacy of the state sentence and announced an upward departure to the statutory maximum of five years.
Rivera did not object at district court; she timely appealed challenging the district court’s reliance on impermissible considerations when imposing the revocation sentence.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied impermissibly on §3553(a)(2)(A) factors (seriousness/just punishment) in imposing revocation sentence	District court made seriousness of murder and need for just punishment dominant factors; Miller error required correction	Sentence increase justified by other permissible considerations (uncharged reentry, concurrent sentences); discretion on plain-error fourth prong not met	The district court erred and error was plain because Miller prohibits reliance on §3553(a)(2)(A) for revocation sentences, and those impermissible factors were dominant
Whether the plain-error fourth prong is satisfied so appellate correction is warranted	Miller error should automatically satisfy fourth prong (per se rule)	Fourth prong is fact-specific; must show effect on fairness, integrity, or public reputation	Rejected per se rule; Rivera failed to show the error seriously affected fairness/integrity/public reputation, so appellate relief was denied

United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding courts may not rely on §3553(a)(2)(A) — seriousness/just punishment — when imposing revocation sentences)
United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2014) (impermissible consideration must be a dominant factor to constitute sentencing error)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error framework and fourth-prong discretionary standard explained)
United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (reasonable-probability standard for showing sentencing error affected substantial rights)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review requires case-specific application of fourth prong)
United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2009) (not every sentence-increasing error must be corrected on plain-error review)