Gilbert Gomez, Jr. v. United States

When a district court imposes imprisonment following revocation of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) excludes the retributive considerations identified in § 3553(a)(2)(A). In Esteras, this Court confirmed that a revocation court may not rely on the seriousness of the underlying offense, promoting respect for the law, or just punishment.1 Petitioner Gilbert Gomez received a twenty-four-month revocation sentence after the district court stated that it had considered “the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” without limiting its consideration to the factors incorporated by § 3583(e). The Fifth Circuit nevertheless affirmed under plain-error review, concluding that Petitioner had not shown that the district court actually relied on a prohibited factor or that any error affected his substantial rights. Therefore, the question presented is as follows: After Esteras v. United States, when imposing revocation imprisonment, does an unqualified invocation of “the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” establish actual reliance, expressly or by unmistakable implication, on the retributive considerations excluded by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) when the district court does not limit its statement to the factors incorporated by § 3583(e) or adequately explain the length and consecutive structure of the revocation sentence? 1 Esteras v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 2031 (2025).