Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cody Alexander Martinez appealed the sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. The district court sentenced him above the applicable advisory guidelines range.
For the first time on appeal, Martinez argued that the district court committed procedural error by inadequately explaining the above-guidelines sentence. He also complained that a sentence above the advisory range was unwarranted.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s explanation was sufficient under the circumstances to demonstrate a reasoned basis for the sentencing decision. Because Martinez had not raised the procedural objection below, the court reviewed for plain error and concluded that he failed to establish reversible plain error.
The court further held that Martinez had not adequately briefed a substantive-reasonableness challenge to his sentence. It therefore treated that issue as abandoned and affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- An explanation for an above-guidelines revocation sentence is sufficient when it shows, under the circumstances, a reasoned basis for the sentencing decision.
- A procedural sentencing objection raised for the first time on appeal is subject to plain-error review.
- A substantive-reasonableness argument may be deemed abandoned when it is not adequately briefed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of preserving procedural sentencing objections in the district court and fully developing each appellate challenge. A defendant who does neither faces the demanding plain-error standard on one issue and abandonment of another.