Case No. 18-7739 | 5th Cir.
Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor
In January 2016, Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez and several of his companions were apprehended near the U.S.-Mexico border by United States Border Patrol agents. Holguin-Hernandez admitted that he was in the United States illegally for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. After searching the bags of each suspect, the agents found approximately 272 pounds of marijuana. Holguin-Hernandez subsequently plead guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of federal law, and was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison followed by two years of supervised release.
In November 2017, while on supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was again arrested for smuggling marijuana and he again plead guilty to new drug-trafficking violations. This time he was sentenced to sixty months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. The district court also imposed a twelve-month revocation term to run consecutively to the sixty-month sentence imposed for the second offense. Holguin-Hernandez appealed the reasonableness of his twelve-month revocation sentence to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that it was greater than necessary to satisfy the federal sentencing guidelines. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, finding that Holguin-Hernandez failed to make a formal objection after the announcement of his sentence.
Holguin-Hernandez appealed to the United States Supreme Court which granted certiorari on June 3, 2019. The question before the Court is whether a criminal defendant must make a formal objection after the pronouncement of his sentence to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of the sentence.
Petitioner argues that according to the plain text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b), no separate objection after the court has ruled is required once a party informs the court of the action it wishes the court to take. Brief for Petitioner at 8, Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, No. 18-7739 (U.S. filed July 29, 2019). Additionally, Petitioner contends that substantive reasonableness is merely a standard of appellate review instead of a freestanding claim. Id. at 9. Likewise, Petitioner argues that there is no utility in requiring defendants to repeat the same arguments after sentencing. Id.
In its brief, Respondent asserts that in order to preserve a claim of error for appellate review, a defendant must specifically identify a claim of error at sentencing. Brief for the United States Supporting Vacatur at 12, Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, No. 18-7739 (U.S. filed July 29, 2019). Furthermore, Respondent argues that a defendant’s request for a shorter sentence does not, by itself, preserve a procedural objection to the sentencing. Id. at 13. Finally, Respondent states that the Fifth Circuit assessed Petitioner’s reasonableness argument under the wrong standard of review and therefore the Court should vacate and remand the case for application of the correct standard. Id. at 14.