Holguin-Hernandez: No Need to Re-Raise Sentence-Length Objections
In Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, the Supreme Court held that asking for a particular sentence before sentencing is enough to preserve a sentence-length error for appeal. Proposing the shorter sentence puts the parties and district court on notice of the defendant’s argument. Defendants thus do not need to object to that later-imposed, longer sentence to avoid plain error review. Requiring a subsequent objection serves no purpose and results in an unnecessarily high bar for appellate review of sentencing.
The split on preserving sentencing errors
As a general rule, litigants must raise an issue in the district court to preserve that issue for appeal. In criminal cases, this general preservation requirement comes from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b). The rule provides that “[a] party may preserve a claim of error by informing the court—when the court ruling or order is made or sought—of the action the party wishes the court to take, or the party’s objection to the court’s action and the grounds for that objection.” Absent preservation, review is only for plain error—a difficult form of appellate review.
Holguin-Hernandez concerned preserving sentencing errors. Before sentencing, a defendant will normally argue for a sentence that the defense thinks is appropriate. The district court then sentences the defendant to what it thinks is appropriate.
In most circuits, proposing a sentence shorter than that which the district court judge imposed is enough to preserve sentence-length issues for appeal. But not in the Fifth Circuit. That court has held that defendants must object again, after the district court has imposed the longer sentence, to preserve the issue.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Holguin-Hernandez
The defendant in Holguin-Hernandez did not make this post-sentencing objection.
The defendant was on supervised release when he was convicted of drug trafficking. The district court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment on the trafficking charge, and the government sought an additional term of imprisonment for the supervised-release violation. The defendant countered with a request for no additional jail time, arguing that the five years he had already received were sufficient. But the district court sided with the government and added 12 months to the defendant’s sentence.
The defendant did not formally object to this additional term of imprisonment. Instead, he appealed. But the Fifth Circuit held that he failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he had “failed to raise his challenges in the district court.” The court accordingly reviewed only for plain error. And it found no clear or obvious error that would warrant vacating the sentence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Holguin-Hernandez
The Supreme Court reversed in a short opinion. The Court held that pre-sentence arguments for a shorter sentence were sufficient to preserve sentence-length errors. Defendants who tell the district court what sentence they think is appropriate fully apprise the court of the action they want the court to take:
A defendant who, by advocating for a particular sentence, communicates to the trial judge his view that a longer sentence is “greater than necessary” has thereby informed the court of the legal error at issue in an appellate challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Nothing more is required.
The Court declined to address other issues that the parties raised in their briefing, as the Fifth Circuit had not addressed them. The Court instead vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote to “emphasize what [the Court was] not deciding”: what is required to preserve a claimed procedural error at sentencing, what is required to preserve a particular argument about sentence length, and whether the defendant in Holguin-Hernandez preserved any particular arguments.
The right decision
Holguin-Hernandez got it right. Preservation requirements allow trial courts to address—and possibly correct—errors in the first instance. And they give opposing parties a chance to respond to arguments before the record closes. These requirements accordingly prevent appellants from sandbagging issues that could have been addressed and corrected before an appeal.
When defendants argue for a sentence shorter, the court and the parties have full notice of the defendants’ position. Any additional preservation requirements—like those imposed by the Fifth Circuit—are needless. There was no benefit to the Fifth Circuit’s old rule, which precluded full appellate review for no good reason. Good riddance.
Other coverage of Holguin-Hernandez
For more on yesterday’s decision, see Douglas Berman’s post at the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog and Rory Little’s opinion analysis at SCOTUSBlog.
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 2020 WL 908880 (Feb. 26, 2020), available at the Supreme Court and Westlaw.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In McGruder v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the Sixth Circuit said that it would address a judicial-estoppel defense raised for the first time after the defendant had filed its notice of appeal. The Sixth Circuit framed this issue as one implicating the content and timing requirements for a notice of appeal. The […]
Continue reading....
In Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, the Ninth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Dupree v. Younger to permit review of part of a summary-judgment denial. In the course of doing so, the court rejected the argument that the denied summary-judgment motion needed to have been potentially dispositive as to the need for […]
Continue reading....
I’ve been following the circuit split over preserving purely legal issues via denied summary-judgment motions for some time. Now, the Supreme Court has finally resolved it. In Dupree v. Younger, the Court held that a denied summary-judgment motion preserves a purely legal issue. Litigants thus do not need to re-raise those issues in post-trial motions […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. Jordan that parties cannot appeal evidence-sufficiency issues raised in a denied summary-judgment motion after a trial on the merits. Parties must instead raise issues with the sufficiency of the trial evidence via a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But Ortiz left open the possibility that […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....