United States v. Wilbert Concho
689 F. App'x 236
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant-Appellant Wilbert Concho appealed a 24-month sentence imposed after revocation of his fourth term of supervised release.
- The Sentencing Guidelines recommended 4–10 months for the revocation, but the district court imposed a 24-month sentence (within the statutory maximum of 36 months).
- The district court explained the above-Guidelines sentence by citing Concho’s pattern of failing to report to his probation officer and absconding while on supervised release.
- Concho argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for inadequate explanation and substantively unreasonable given the facts of the revocation and his personal history.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard for supervised-release revocation sentences and applied a two-step review: procedural error first, then substantive abuse-of-discretion if no procedural error was found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — adequacy of court's explanation for above-Guidelines sentence | Concho: district court failed to adequately explain reasons for the deviation | Government: court gave adequate reasons (repeated failures to report/absconding) | No procedural error; explanation adequate |
| Substantive reasonableness — whether 24 months was an abuse of discretion | Concho: sentence did not reflect revocation facts and his personal history | Government: sentence within statutory maximum and justified by defendant's conduct; entitled to deference | Substantively reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (two-step, "plainly unreasonable" review for supervised-release revocation sentences)
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (appellate deference to district court's revocation-sentence determinations)
- United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 1997) (sentence within statutory maximum is "clearly legal")
- United States v. Rice, [citation="487 F. App'x 182"] (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming above-Guidelines revocation sentence within statutory maximum)
- United States v. Jones, [citation="182 F. App'x 343"] (5th Cir. 2006) (same)