Background
Edgar Julian Antunez-Perez appealed his sentence following a conviction for illegal reentry and a consecutive sentence imposed after revoking his term of supervised release. He argued the district court failed to explain why sentences should run consecutively, improperly ordered supervised release on a deportable alien, and considered prohibited retributive factors.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the case for plain error. It found the record implied the district court considered the appellant’s arguments and the sentencing factors under Section eighteen hundred and fifty-three of Title one of the United States Code. The court determined the district court’s discussion of these factors applied to the consecutive sentence decision. It noted the appellant did not show a more thorough explanation would have resulted in a lesser sentence. The court clarified that a reference to a just sentence is not the same as the prohibited factor of just punishment. It found no indication that promoting respect for the law was a dominant factor. The court concluded the district court’s explanation was sufficient because it imposed supervised release to deter future criminal conduct, noting this was the defendant’s third conviction for illegal reentry.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that plain error review applies when sentencing arguments are not raised below and clarifies that general references to justice do not constitute prohibited retributive sentencing factors.