Pablo Jacobo Felix-Samaniego v. United States

Should the court of appeals indulge a presumption of reasonableness for a within-guideline-range sentence where the Sentencing Commission has subsequently amended the relevant Sentencing Guidelines? DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States v. Felix-Samaniego, No. 5:19-cr-114 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2024) United States v. Felix-Samaniego, No. 5:23-cr-96 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2024) United States v. Felix-Samaniego, No. 24-10283, consolidated with No. 24-10284 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented...................................................................................................... ii Directly Related Proceedings ...................................................................................... ii Table of Authorities .................................................................................................... iii Opinions Below ............................................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................. 1 Statutory Provisions Involved ..................................................................................... 1 Statement ..................................................................................................................... 4 Reasons for Granting the Petition .............................................................................. 5 A. At his original sentencing for the marijuana offense, the district court correctly anticipated Amendment 817 but failed to anticipate Amendments 821 and 825. ............................................ 5 B. Applying Amendment 821 at the original sentencing would lowered both the original guideline range for the marijuana case and the policy statement range on revocation. ...................................................................................................... 7 C. When the Commission revises its wholesale guidelines, the presumption of reasonableness loses its raison d’etre. ........................................................................................................................ 9