United States v. Zeiders
440 F. App'x 699
11th Cir.2011Background
- Zeiders pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- The district court stated at the plea hearing that Zeiders would face a maximum of three years of supervised release, which was incorrect.
- Zeiders did not object to the error in the district court, so the issue is reviewed for plain error.
- Zeiders asks to vacate and remand to reduce his term to three years, challenge is both procedural and substantive.
- At sentencing, the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a life term of supervised release within the five-years-to-life guidelines range.
- The court held the misstatement did not warrant reversal and affirmed the life-term sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district court's misstatement of the supervised-release term require reversal? | Zeiders contends the error prejudiced him by affecting his plea. | Zeiders failed to show the plea would have differed; no reversible error. | No reversible plain error; no evidence plea would change. |
| Was the sentence procedurally reasonable given the court's explanation of the sentence? | Zeiders argues lack of explicit discussion of each factor rendered it procedurally unreasonable. | Court adequately considered § 3553(a) and did not need to discuss each factor. | Procedurally reasonable; explicit factor-by-factor discussion not required. |
| Is a life term of supervised release substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a)? | Zeiders cites disparate sentences to argue his life term is greater than necessary. | Within the five-year to life range; no showing of imbalance in weighing factors. | Within-range sentence not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review requires prejudice to substantial rights)
- United States v. Dominquez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 ( Supreme Court 2004) (plea withdrawal under plain error requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (not required to discuss every § 3553(a) factor for reasoned basis)
- United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) (within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; differing views not reversible error)
- United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (within-guidelines sentences are generally reasonable)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (procedure for explaining sentences; error if miscalculated or unexplained)
- United States v. Dean, 635 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2011) (substantive unreasonableness analysis by comparing sentencing purposes)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 ( Supreme Court 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)