Failure to Specifically Object to District Court's Explanation for Sentence Results in Plain Error Review

U.S. v. Chavez, 2013 WL 3801687 (7/23/13) (Col.) (Published) - The defendant is stuck with plain error review because, although he objected to consecutive sentences, he did not object to the district court's explanation for why it imposed the sentence to run consecutively to the yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. The 10th did not believe the district court applied a rigid rule that all state sentences should run consecutively to all federal sentences even though the district court said: "there should be federal sentences for violating federal laws, and there should be state consequences for violating state laws." The district court said other things indicating that proposition applied in this particular case. The defendant did not overcome the presumption that the district court weighed every 18 USC § 3553(a) factor. The 10th indicates in a footnote there's no binding authority in the 10th taking sides on the circuit split as to whether a sentence can begin to run before the actual date imposed. The 10th presumed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence even though there was no guideline for the state sentence that had not been imposed. And anyway adding the later-imposed state sentence to the federal sentence left the total sentence within the guideline range. A district court's failure to state how certain mitigating factors play into the sentencing decision does not render a sentence substantively unreasonable.