Tenth Circuit standard for reviewing district court decision to impose consecutive sentences on revocation of supervised release remains in limbo

APPEAL/SENTENCING United States v. Rodriguez-Quintanilla, No. 05-2043, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Apr. 3, 2006)(New Mexico). Appeal of sentence for illegal reentry to United States after deportation for aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). HELD: While relationship between previously used “abuse of discretion” standard, “plainly unreasonable” standard, and more recently articulated post-Booker “reasonableness” standard for reviewing district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences after revocation of supervised release is “less than crystal clear,” it is not necessary to decide which standard applies. Under facts of this case, when district court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences after revocation of supervised release, district court neither abused its discretion in applying sentencing guidelines exactly as written, nor did it impose unreasonable sentence in doing so. Read the opinion here.