United States v. Flores-Mejia, No. 12-3149 (3d Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseAt the sentencing hearing following his conviction for his sixth illegal reentry after deportation, Mejia made a mitigation argument, based on his cooperation with the government in providing information about a homicide and prostitution ring. Sentenced to 78 months, he did not object to the court’s failure to rule on the request for variance or point out the court’s failure to explicitly address or give further consideration to that argument. He later appealed, arguing that the court committed procedural error by failing to give meaningful consideration to that argument. The Third Circuit, en banc, announced a “new rule.” Unless a relevant objection has been made earlier, a party must object to a procedural error after the sentence is pronounced in order to preserve the error and avoid plain error review.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 19, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.