Unpreserved “Inadequate Sentencing Explanation” Claims Sound in Procedural Error and Trigger Plain-Error Review

1. Introduction

In United States v. Guadalupe Hernandez-Rios (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025) (unpublished), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 28-month, within-Guidelines sentence imposed for felony illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). The defendant, a Mexican citizen repeatedly removed from the United States, argued on appeal that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable because the court did not give a sufficiently specific explanation for why 28 months (and not a lower number) was “sufficient but not greater than necessary.”

The panel framed the case around two sentencing-review issues: (1) whether a complaint about the sentencing court’s explanation is procedural (not substantive), and (2) what standard of review applies when the defendant does not object at sentencing.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit held that Hernandez-Rios’s appellate argument—though styled as a challenge to the sentence’s “substantive” reasonableness—was in substance a procedural reasonableness claim about the adequacy of the district court’s explanation.

Because Hernandez-Rios affirmatively declined to object when asked for legal objections and confirmed satisfaction that the court addressed his arguments, the panel reviewed for plain error under United States v. Nunley. The court found no error: the sentencing judge referenced the Guidelines as a benchmark, identified key 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) considerations (deterrence, protection of the public, respect for immigration law), and tied those factors to defendant-specific facts (five removals, repeated reentry, multiple impaired-driving incidents, and prior reentry sentence not deterring).

The panel additionally noted that, even if treated as a substantive challenge, the within-Guidelines sentence carried a presumption of reasonableness, which Hernandez-Rios did not rebut. The judgment was AFFIRMED.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

  • United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018): Supplied the core framework distinguishing procedural from substantive reasonableness. The panel relied on Rayyan to reclassify Hernandez-Rios’s “not enough explanation” argument as procedural, because it targets the sentencing process (the articulation of reasons) rather than the length of the sentence itself.
  • United States v. Nunley, 29 F.4th 824 (6th Cir. 2022): Controlled the standard of review. Under Nunley, unpreserved procedural objections are reviewed for plain error. The panel applied Nunley because counsel made no objection and explicitly accepted the court’s handling of the arguments on the record.
  • United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006): Supported the proposition that a district court need not “recite” the § 3553(a) factors mechanically. The opinion used Blackwell to reject any suggestion that sentencing requires a checklist-style incantation.
  • Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018): Provided the Supreme Court’s functional standard: the explanation must be enough to allow “meaningful appellate review,” and the required depth “depends” on the circumstances. The Sixth Circuit used Chavez-Meza to justify affirmance where the district judge’s rationale—though not exhaustive—was case-specific and reviewable.
  • Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) and United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008): Cited (via Nunley) for the principle that the record must show the judge considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis. Vonner also reflects the Sixth Circuit’s preservation doctrine for sentencing objections, reinforcing why plain-error review applied here.
  • United States v. Loos, 66 F.4th 620 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Sexton, 889 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2018)): Used to reject the premise that a court must explain why the chosen number is appropriate “rather than an alternative.” This was central to disposing of the defendant’s implicit demand for a comparative explanation (why 28 months instead of 20).
  • United States v. Drake, 126 F.4th 1242 (6th Cir. 2025): Cited for the presumption of reasonableness afforded to within-Guidelines sentences on substantive review. This allowed the panel to note that even under the government’s characterization (substantive challenge), Hernandez-Rios faced an uphill battle.
  • United States v. Lanier, 2023 WL 4963190 (6th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023): Reinforced that rebutting the within-Guidelines presumption is a “heavy burden,” supporting affirmance on any substantive framing.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The opinion’s reasoning proceeds in three steps.

  1. Correct characterization of the claim: The court treated an “insufficient explanation” argument as procedural because it challenges the adequacy of the sentencing court’s reasons, not merely the sentence’s length. This classification matters because it dictates both the doctrinal test and the applicable preservation rules.
  2. Preservation and standard of review: The panel emphasized the sentencing colloquy: counsel stated “No” legal objections and agreed the court addressed all arguments. Under United States v. Nunley, that failure to object triggers plain-error review for procedural complaints.
  3. Adequate explanation on this record: Applying Chavez-Meza v. United States and the Rita/Vonner line, the panel found the district court’s explanation sufficient because it: (a) referenced the Guidelines as an initial benchmark, (b) identified relevant § 3553(a) factors, and (c) connected those factors to individualized facts (repeated removals and reentries, impaired driving risk, and prior reentry punishment failing to deter). The opinion underscores that the court need not justify the chosen sentence against every alternative number—consistent with United States v. Loos and United States v. Sexton.

3.3. Impact

Although unpublished, the decision consolidates several practical lessons likely to influence Sixth Circuit sentencing litigation—especially in illegal reentry cases:

  • Labeling matters less than substance: If the complaint is “the judge didn’t explain enough,” the Sixth Circuit will treat it as procedural, even if the appellant calls it substantive. This channels such appeals into preservation doctrine and plain-error hurdles.
  • Preservation is decisive: A defendant who does not object—and particularly one who expressly states there are no objections—will often be confined to plain-error review, which is rarely satisfied absent a clear failure to address core arguments or a demonstrably review-proof record.
  • “Comparative” explanations are not required: The panel’s reliance on Loos/Sexton reinforces that district courts generally need not say why 28 months rather than 20, so long as the record demonstrates a reasoned basis tied to § 3553(a).
  • Within-Guidelines sentences remain difficult to upset: Even if reframed as substantive, the presumption recognized in United States v. Drake and echoed via United States v. Lanier makes affirmance more likely when the sentencing judge articulates deterrence, public-safety, and respect-for-law rationales grounded in the defendant’s history.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness: Procedural concerns how the sentence was imposed (Guidelines calculation, consideration of § 3553(a), explanation). Substantive concerns whether the length of the sentence is unreasonable given the totality of circumstances.
  • Plain-error review: A tougher appellate standard applied when the issue wasn’t properly raised in the district court. The appellant must typically show a clear legal mistake that affected substantial rights and seriously impacted the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
  • § 3553(a) factors: The statutory considerations that guide federal sentencing (e.g., seriousness of the offense, deterrence, protection of the public, the defendant’s history and characteristics).
  • Guidelines range and “within-Guidelines” sentence: The Sentencing Guidelines provide an advisory range; a sentence “within” that range often receives a presumption of reasonableness on appeal.
  • Downward variance: A request for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range based on the § 3553(a) factors.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Guadalupe Hernandez-Rios affirms that a claim attacking the adequacy of a district court’s sentencing explanation is a procedural challenge—and if not preserved, it will be reviewed for plain error. The Sixth Circuit found no error where the district court connected key § 3553(a) considerations—deterrence, public safety, and respect for immigration law—to the defendant’s repeated removals, repeated reentry, and impaired-driving history, and where precedent makes clear that a judge need not justify the chosen sentence against every proposed alternative.