Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Luis Daniel Fuentes v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 24-11906 · judgment September 11, 2025
Question presented
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) requires a court, at the time of sentencing, to “state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” This Court has previously limited this statute’s mandate and stated that a sentencing court need not issue a full explanation of its reasoning – explaining a court need not write “full opinion” in every case to explain its reasoning. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-9 (2007). However, the Fifth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to Due Process, including on appeal. But without a complete record on appeal, a defendant cannot argue that a sentencing court failed to properly weigh the factors set forth in § 3553(a), resulting in an unreasonable sentence. The question presented is: Whether a sentencing court must address mitigating evidence and arguments offered by defense counsel regarding factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when stating its reasons for its imposition of a particular sentence?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Meghan Collins
Office of the Federal Public Defender
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jan 20 2026Petition DENIED.
- Dec 31 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
- Dec 22 2025Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Dec 10 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2026)