Roberto Godinez-Gomez v. United States

When considering imposing a term of supervised release, a sentencing court must weigh the factors specified by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) while also considering U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which generally discourages applying supervised release to deportable defendants. Petitioner Roberto Godinez-Gomez, a deportable defendant, received a sentence including supervised release. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit affirmed under plain-error review without requiring a case-specific explanation for supervised release. The court held that, even assuming error in imposing supervised release on a deportable defendant, Petitioner failed to show an effect on substantial rights. That approach permits recurring violations of § 5D1.1(c)’s deportable-defendant presumption to evade correction whenever the sentencing record is silent. The courts of appeals are divided in how they apply 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) to deportable defendants. Therefore, the question presented is as follows: May appellate courts affirm, under plain-error review, the imposition of supervised release on a deportable defendant where the district court failed to provide the case-specific justification contemplated by U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and relied only on generalized sentencing rationales?