Background
Christopher Joseph Mata appealed his sentence following a guilty plea conviction for threatening or conveying false information concerning an attempt to damage or destroy a building by means of an explosive. He argued that the district court erred in applying an enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on a finding that the offense caused substantial disruption or expenditure.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Mata did not file written objections to the presentence report or make an objection at the sentencing hearing. Although the district court offered more time to prepare for a variance, counsel indicated readiness to continue. The record indicates Mata’s counsel merely failed to object to the enhancement and did not waive the issue. Because the issue was forfeited, it is reviewed for plain error. The court noted it has not previously addressed what constitutes a substantial disruption or expenditure under the specific guideline. Therefore, Mata has not shown that the district court made a clear or obvious error in applying the enhancement.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that failure to object to sentencing enhancements at the district court level results in forfeiture, limiting appellate review to plain error.