Introduction

United States v. Fuller, decided May 5, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, addresses the procedural requirements a defendant must satisfy to challenge the reasonableness of a federal sentencing on appeal. Elbert Andrew Fuller, Jr., pled guilty to multiple counts of violence and child abuse committed in Indian Country and was sentenced to 308 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Fuller argued that the district court relied on two factually erroneous assumptions—namely, that he invoked his tribal identity to avoid responsibility and that he used his mental‐health history as an improper defense—which rendered his sentence procedurally unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit held that Fuller waived these arguments by failing to object at sentencing and by failing to invoke the plain‐error standard in his appellate brief.

Key Issues:

• Whether a sentencing‐stage objection is required to preserve procedural reasonableness challenges for appeal.
• The standard of review (plain error) when a defendant has not objected below.
• Burden of demonstrating that any error affected substantial rights under the plain‐error test.

Parties: United States of America (Plaintiff–Appellee) v. Elbert Andrew Fuller, Jr. (Defendant–Appellant).

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s sentence. Because Fuller did not lodge a procedural objection at the sentencing hearing despite being given two opportunities, the court found that he forfeited his challenge. Under plain‐error review, Fuller also failed to argue that any error affected his substantial rights. Hence, the appellate court declined to review the merits of his objections to the sentencing court’s factual findings concerning his tribal identity and mental‐health issues.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) & 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G): Governing submission without oral argument.
• Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 & 10th Cir. R. 32.1: Permitting citation of nonprecedential opinions for persuasive value.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3231 & 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Establishing district and appellate jurisdiction.
• Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Standard for abuse‐of‐discretion review of sentence reasonableness.
• United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2019): Holding that a failure to object below triggers plain‐error review.
• United States v. Lucero, 130 F.4th 877 (10th Cir. 2025): Clarifying that a defendant under plain‐error review must show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence.
• Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011): Forfeiture doctrine; an appellant must preserve issues below.
• United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008): Placing the burden on the party forfeiting the issue to show prejudice under plain‐error review.
• United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814 (10th Cir. 2005): Defining prejudice as a reasonable probability of sentencing difference.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps:

1. Forfeiture of Procedural Objections: Fuller was explicitly invited to object twice after sentence announcement—and his counsel was also asked—but no objection was made. Under Leffler and Richison, a failure to object means forfeiture, not mere waiver.
2. Plain‐Error Standard: Because Fuller did not object, the Tenth Circuit applied the four‐prong plain‐error test:
   • (1) Error;
   • (2) Plain (i.e., clear under controlling precedent);
   • (3) Affecting substantial rights (requiring a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence);
   • (4) Affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
   Fuller’s briefing never addressed prong (3). He failed to demonstrate prejudice (no showing that, absent the alleged factual misstatements, he would have received a lower sentence). Under Mendoza and Lucero, that omission is fatal.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces the strict obligation of criminal defendants to:

• Raise all procedural objections at sentencing if they intend to preserve them for appeal;
• Invoke plain‐error review and demonstrate prejudice in their appellate briefs when a sentencing objection is forfeited;
• Understand that non–precedential opinions can be cited only for persuasive value, not binding authority.

United States v. Fuller is likely to curtail belated sentencing challenges, ensuring that trial judges receive timely notice of factual disputes and perceived procedural errors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Procedural Reasonableness: Whether the sentencing court followed the proper steps—calculating the guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and allowing argument.
• Forfeiture vs. Waiver: Forfeiture occurs when a party fails to make a timely objection (subject to plain‐error review). Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right (no review at all).
• Plain‐Error Test: A four‐part inquiry that gates appellate relief when an issue was not preserved below.
• Substantial Rights/Prejudice: In sentencing, prejudice means a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the defendant would have received a lighter sentence.
• Indian Country Jurisdiction: Federal courts can prosecute crimes committed by or against Indians in “Indian Country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1153.

Conclusion

United States v. Fuller crystallizes the requirement that defendants must timely object to procedural errors at sentencing and must, if they fail to object, shoulder the burden of invoking plain‐error review on appeal. Fuller’s failure both to object in the district court and to demonstrate prejudice in his appellate briefs led the Tenth Circuit to affirm his 308-month prison sentence. The case thus stands as a cautionary precedent: meticulous preservation of objections and a fully developed plain‐error argument are indispensable for challenging federal sentences on appeal.