Adequate Explanation of Consecutive Sentences for Supervised-Release Violations: Sixth Circuit Plain Error Standard

Introduction

This case arises from the Sixth Circuit’s review of John Luis Guevara-Rosado’s sentence after he pleaded guilty both to new federal drug offenses and to a violation of his supervised release. The appellant had originally been convicted in 2016 for attempting to smuggle cocaine into Puerto Rico and was serving a 57-month prison term followed by three years of supervised release. While on supervised release in Ohio, he facilitated the shipment of approximately 500 grams of cocaine in 2023. At a combined sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a 30-month term for the new offenses and a consecutive 24-month term for the supervised-release violation, resulting in a total of 54 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Guevara-Rosado challenged only the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for running the two sentences consecutively, arguing procedural unreasonableness under plain-error review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit affirmed. It held that (1) because the defendant did not object in district court to the explanation for consecutive sentences, review is for plain error; (2) under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3584(a)–(b) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), a district court must consider the Sentencing Commission’s recommendation that supervised-release revocation sentences run consecutively but need only “make generally clear” its reasons; (3) the district court’s comments—acknowledging the advisory nature of the policy and invoking the § 3553(a) factors (deterrence, criminal history, harm to the community)—satisfied that standard; and (4) there was no obvious error in its sentencing explanation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. King, 914 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 2019): Establishes that an unpreserved sentencing-explanation claim is reviewed for plain error and outlines the district court’s discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011): Emphasizes respectful consideration of the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements when determining consecutive sentences.
United States v. Hinojosa, 67 F.4th 334 (6th Cir. 2023): Clarifies that district courts need not recite guideline provisions verbatim but must make generally clear their reasoning in light of § 3553(a).
United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043 (6th Cir. 2019): Defines procedural-reasonableness review for sentencing issues and distinguishes it from substantive review.
United States v. Hall, 632 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2011): Deals with § 5G1.3(c) concerning consecutive federal sentences to undischarged state sentences—found inapplicable to supervised-release revocations.
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. 169 (2020): Explains the standard of review for unpreserved sentencing challenges.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) and United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008): Presume reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences under abuse-of-discretion review.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by reiterating that 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) grants district courts broad discretion to decide whether multiple sentences run concurrently or consecutively, subject to consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), judges are advised to run supervised-release revocation sentences consecutively, but this advice is not binding. The key requirement is that the court “make generally clear” its reasoning.

Here, the district court explicitly recognized the advisory nature of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) and stated it found the recommendation “appropriate” in light of the defendant’s repeated cocaine trafficking. It cited the need for adequate deterrence (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)), the defendant’s prior federal conviction, his continuing disregard for the law, and the substantial quantity of cocaine involved. Those explanations sufficed to forestall any plain-error challenge to procedural unreasonableness.

Impact

This decision reinforces the Sixth Circuit’s approach to unpreserved sentencing-explanation claims. Moving forward:

District courts in the Sixth Circuit must ensure that, even if a defendant does not object, their reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences—especially in supervised-release revocation contexts—is “generally clear” under § 3553(a).
Defendants seeking reversal for inadequate explanation must press their objections at sentencing; failing to do so relegates them to the demanding plain-error standard.
The case underscores respectful deference to Sentencing Commission policy statements, while affirming that judges need not cite guideline sections verbatim.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release: A period of community supervision following imprisonment for a federal offense. Violation can trigger new imprisonment.
Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences: Concurrent sentences run at the same time; consecutive sentences stack back-to-back.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors: Statutory guidepost including deterrence, protection of the public, seriousness of the offense, and respect for the law.
Sentencing Commission Policy Statements: Non-binding guidelines that courts should consider when determining sentences, found in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness: Procedural focuses on how the court arrived at a sentence; substantive targets the length or severity of the sentence itself.
Plain Error Review: A deferential appellate standard that requires showing an obvious error affecting substantial rights when the issue was not raised below.

Conclusion

United States v. Guevara-Rosado confirms that when sentencing a defendant for both new offenses and a supervised-release violation, a district court in the Sixth Circuit must consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors and the Sentencing Commission’s advisory recommendation to impose consecutive sentences. It need not recite guideline sections verbatim but must make its reasoning generally clear. Failure to lodge a timely objection limits appellate review to plain error, which is difficult to establish absent a truly opaque sentencing explanation. This decision therefore provides both practitioners and lower courts with a clear framework for addressing and preserving challenges to consecutive sentencing decisions in supervised-release contexts.