Holguin-Hernandez v. United States (18-7739)

argument 18-7739

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 47 min 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue the Court is addressing in Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Her argument next in case eighteen seventy seven three thirty nine, Holdwin Hernandez versus United States. Ms. Turner.

Nicole Turner 0:08

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Rule fifty one tells parties to criminal proceedings how to preserve claims of error for appeal. A party does so by telling the court what action the party wants the court to take when a ruling is made or sought. There's no need to tell the court twice. In every federal court of appeals except the Fifth Circuit, this rule means what it says in the context of sentencing proceedings. Specifically, it means that a criminal defendant who argues for a particular sentence in district court preserves for appeal a challenge to a longer sentence. In the Fifth Circuit, however, a criminal defendant, like petitioner here, must argue for a particular sentence in district court.

Nicole Turner 0:49

during the sentencing hearing and must object to any longer sentence as substantively unreasonable after the sentence issues. That postsentencing objection requirement flouts Rule fifty one, which expressly says that exceptions are not required. Nor is there any practical merit to the Fifth Circuit's rule. In fact, there's no evidence that a district court has ever reconsidered a sentence in light of a post sentencing objection. And that makes sense. The sentencing court will have just heard and rejected the same arguments in issuing a sentence. Recognizing that the Fifth Circuit's rule is indefensible, the government does not defend it. Instead, it supports Amicus the petitioner here. Amicus tries to defend the judgment below on alternative grounds.

Nicole Turner 1:31

According to Amicus, a party must identify the length beyond which a sentence is substantively unreasonable. But sentencing reasonableness is not a freestanding requirement under the Sentencing Reform Act. It is simply a standard of a pellet review. And there is no need for parties to frame their claims in terms of that standard of appellate review while they are still in district court. just as they need not frame their objections to evidentiary rulings in terms of abusive discretion or to factual findings in terms of clear error while they are still in the trial court. Because petitioner here adequately preserved his challenge to the length of his sentence, this court should reverse. I'm open to questions.

Nicole Turner 2:12

But if you have none, there are really two problems. Well I'll ask you.

Samuel A. Alito 2:15

I'll ask you.

Unknown 2:21

The preferred uh the defendant's preferred sentence didn't say that anything other than that would be excessive.

Nicole Turner 2:34

That's correct, uh Justice Ginsburg, and that is fine to put the court on notice of his claim that his sentence is too long. Uh and there's sort of two parts to my answer. The first is that The better reading of section thirty five fifty three A is that the district court's task is to identify the particular sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the statute's objectives. And sufficient but not greater than necessary necessary necessarily means that there is a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary. If one if a s if ten months is sufficient, fifteen months is obviously greater. So by asking the court for a particular sentence. the party puts the district court on notice of their objections to any other sentence.

Nicole Turner 3:19

But even if you don't agree with that reading of section thirty by fifty three A, there is no need to inform the court of all possible actions it might take. There's no there's no basis for that requirement in Rule fifty one and in other areas of the law where there are where a district court can take a range of uh actions, for example in the context of Rule Eleven sanctions or a length of continuance or reasonable attorney's fees, a party simply has to ask for the result it wants. It doesn't have to identify all possible actions a district court might take to preserve that claim for appeal.

John G. Roberts 3:51

I mean let's say the the the uh defendant says I think my sentence should be, you know two years. And the District Court says uh in its decision, well I think that I'm going to sentence you uh to two years and six months, because I think you've you know misunderstood this particular provision about you know history or deterrence or or uh whichever.