USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 27
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDIN ANAEL SOLIS-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00053-FDW-DCK-1)
Argued: March 19, 2025 Decided: July 23, 2025
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion, in which Judge Heytens joined. Judge Traxler joined except as to Part II.B and wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.
ARGUED: Ashley Ali Askari, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 27
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 27
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
Edin Anael Solis-Rodriguez twice brandished firearms in local restaurants during a
sixteen-month span. The second time, he shot a patron at point-blank range. Because Solis-
Rodriguez had entered the United States illegally, the government charged him with two
counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).
Solis-Rodriguez pled guilty. He now challenges his Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 colloquy as plainly erroneous and his sentence as procedurally unreasonable.
We reject his challenges. Even assuming a plain error at the Rule 11 colloquy, it did not
affect Solis-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. And the district court reasonably considered
Solis-Rodriguez’s mitigating arguments before explaining why it issued the sentence.
Thus, we affirm.
I.
Solis-Rodriguez grew up in Honduras. Having unlawfully entered the United States,
he was deported in 2018. He then reentered—again unlawfully.
In August 2020, Solis-Rodriguez entered a Charlotte, North Carolina restaurant with
a Hi-Point .45 caliber pistol visibly tucked in the back of his pants. Scared staff called the
police. When police officers arrived, they asked Solis-Rodriguez if he had a gun or spoke
English. He answered “no” to both questions. The officers, with his consent, then frisked
Solis-Rodriguez and found the loaded Hi-Point pistol.
In November 2021, Solis-Rodriguez and Chris Silva got into an argument at The
Taco Bar restaurant, also in Charlotte, North Carolina. According to Solis-Rodriguez, Silva
threatened to kill him and his family. Silva and Solis-Rodriguez went outside, and Silva
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 4 of 27
spoke with a security guard. At the same time, Solis-Rodriguez got a pistol from his car.
He began arguing with Silva again, pulled out his pistol and shot him at point-blank range.
The bullets struck Silva’s chest and left hand. He went into a four-day coma and required
several surgeries.
Police officers collected nine-millimeter shell casings at the shooting scene. Two
days later, they arrested Solis-Rodriguez at his apartment. Solis-Rodriguez admitted to the
police that he shot Silva but claimed he did so only in response to Silva’s threats. Police
officers found a nine-millimeter pistol in Solis-Rodriguez’s apartment that they later
determined matched the shell casings found at the crime scene, along with the clothes Solis-
Rodriguez wore the night of the November shooting. Solis-Rodriguez admitted he had used
that pistol. He also admitted to entering the country unlawfully.
A grand jury indicted Solis-Rodriguez on two counts of possessing a firearm as an
illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)—one count for the August 2020 incident and
another for the November 2021 shooting. 1 After Solis-Rodriguez agreed to plead guilty,
the government filed a written factual basis, which Solis-Rodriguez did not dispute.
A federal magistrate judge conducted a plea hearing. 2 Solis-Rodriguez received
assistance from a Spanish-language interpreter. The judge explained that Solis-Rodriguez
1 Solis-Rodriguez told the police officers about a third incident that occurred in October 2021. He brought a gun to a party in someone’s yard, and when a fight broke out, he fired the gun into the ground to break it up. According to him, the bullet ricocheted and hit someone in the leg. The government did not charge Solis-Rodriguez for the October 2021 party incident. 2 Solis-Rodriguez consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See J.A. 17.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 5 of 27
faced two counts, and “[e]ach of these counts alleges the same offense, possession of a
firearm by an illegal alien. The difference between the counts is that they occurred on
different dates.” J.A. 18. The judge further clarified that “[e]ach of these offenses is a
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(5). Each of these offenses alleges
possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.” J.A. 19. He then asked the prosecutor “what’s
the maximum penalty for that offense?” Id. The prosecutor responded, “[t]he maximum
term of imprisonment [is] 10 years, a $250,000 fine, and up to three years of supervised
release.” 3 Id. The prosecutor mentioned that the Armed Career Criminal Act might apply,
but the magistrate judge promptly determined it did not. Id. Then the magistrate judge
stated “[i]t sounds like the maximum penalty for these offenses would be 10 years
imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both, and period of supervised release.” J.A. 20. Solis-
Rodriguez’s counsel agreed with that statement. Then, Solis-Rodriguez pled guilty to both
counts.
A probation officer prepared a presentence report (“PSR”) following the guilty plea.
To determine his offense level, the PSR applied a 4-level enhancement for Solis-
Rodriguez’s use of a firearm in connection with attempted murder. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018). The base offense level plus the enhancement resulted in an
offense level of 37. The PSR then subtracted 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, for
3 At the time of Solis-Rodriguez’s plea, § 922(g)(5) carried a statutory maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2018). Congress has since amended the statute to provide up to 15 years’ imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) (2022), but the 10-year maximum applies to Solis-Rodriguez’s case.
5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 6 of 27
a total offense level of 34. Solis-Rodriguez had 1 criminal history point for entering the
country illegally. Combining the total offense level with his criminal history point, the
guidelines range for Solis-Rodriguez’s potential imprisonment term was 151 to 188
months. The PSR also stated that each § 922(g)(5) count carried a maximum term of 10
years’ imprisonment. Finally, the PSR flagged that under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d) (2018), the
sentences must run consecutively up and until the combined sentences reach the total
maximum punishment—here, 20 years’ imprisonment.
Solis-Rodriguez raised a couple of objections to the PSR. He argued that the
attempted murder enhancement should not apply because he shot Silva in self-defense. And
he argued that the two § 922(g)(5) offenses were really just one continuing offense with a
maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court first accepted Solis-Rodriguez’s guilty
plea. The court then rejected Solis-Rodriguez’s “continuing offense” argument. It
explained that the use of two different guns in the two incidents meant there were “two
separate counts of conviction,” allowing for stacked sentences. J.A. 91. And the court
rejected Solis-Rodriguez’s objection to the murder enhancement because Solis-Rodriguez
acted unreasonably by using violence and not retreating. So, it adopted the PSR’s
guidelines range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment.
Next, the court proceeded with Solis-Rodriguez’s allocution. Solis-Rodriguez
expressed remorse during his allocution and requested to be placed close to his family in
Charlotte. The district court agreed to make such a recommendation.
6 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 7 of 27
Then, the court asked for arguments about the appropriate sentence. Solis-
Rodriguez’s counsel argued for a 151-month sentence. He pointed out that “Mr. Solis-
Rodriguez stands before the Court a very young man.” J.A. 108. He was 22 years old at
the time. And counsel noted Solis-Rodriguez’s lack of any violent or weapons-related
criminal history. The government then responded by arguing for a 180-month sentence. It
recounted the details of the two charged incidents as well as the October 2021 party
incident. It described the calculated nature of the November 2021 shooting. And it argued
Solis-Rodriguez “thinks violence is the answer to his problems.” J.A. 110.
The district court first determined the standard conditions of supervision “are correct
and appropriate to be imposed in this case as to this defendant” after reviewing the facts of
the case. J.A. 112. It then addressed Solis-Rodriguez as it “consider[ed] a series of
sentencing factors that were enacted by Congress that guide courts in fashioning sentences
that are sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing.” 4
J.A. 114. The court emphasized it “has considered all of the sentencing factors. Whether it
mentions a sentencing factor or not, I want it clear on the record that the Court has
considered all of the sentencing factors.” Id.
4 Congress enacted these factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). They include the (1) “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for the sentence imposed” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, afford adequate deterrence and protect the public; (3) “the kinds of sentences available”; (4) “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range [under the guidelines]”; (5) “any pertinent policy statement” (6) “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities”; and (7) “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
7 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 8 of 27
The court then “highlighted some [factors] that it finds particularly important.” J.A.
115. It discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense as “very, very disturbing.”
J.A. 114. The district judge, describing himself “[a]s a father like you,” acknowledged
Solis-Rodriguez’s frustration with Silva’s threats. Id. But he pointed out that violence was
not the proper solution. The court also highlighted a need to specifically deter Solis-
Rodriguez from further criminal conduct before flagging the importance of general
deterrence. And finally, it “need[ed] to promote respect for the law. And the law is the
mechanism for resolving disputes, not shooting somebody in their chest and in their arm.”
J.A. 115. The court wrapped up by reiterating it had considered all the sentencing factors.
The court imposed a 120-month sentence on Count 1 and a 60-month sentence on
Count 2, running consecutively for a total of 180 months’ imprisonment. After explaining
the sentence, the district court asked counsel “if there’s any legal reason why this sentence
as proposed should not be imposed?” J.A. 121. Solis-Rodriguez’s counsel responded,
“[j]ust the issues that we previously raised that the Court overruled.” Id.
II.
Solis-Rodriguez now appeals, alleging errors at both the Rule 11 colloquy and
sentencing hearing. 5 In particular, he argues that the magistrate judge erred under Rule 11
by never clarifying that each § 922(g)(5) count carried up to 10 years’ imprisonment. So,
he wants his guilty plea vacated. And he alleges his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
5 We have jurisdiction of this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
8 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 9 of 27
because the district court failed to properly consider his nonfrivolous mitigating arguments
about remorse, age and lack of criminal history. For that, he wants a new sentencing.
We reject both challenges. First, we assume the magistrate judge erred “plainly”
during the Rule 11 colloquy. But Solis-Rodriguez has failed to demonstrate that error
affected his substantial rights. Second, the district court sufficiently considered Solis-
Rodriguez’s nonfrivolous mitigating arguments and explained the sentence. So, the
sentence was procedurally reasonable.
A. Plea Colloquy
“Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant,
must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is
offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various
rights the defendant is relinquishing by pleading guilty.” United States v. Williams, 811
F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)). Solis-Rodriguez argues the
district court erred by stating he faced a combined maximum penalty of 10 years’
imprisonment when he really faced a maximum penalty of 20 years—10 years on each of
the two § 922(g)(5) counts.
“Because [Solis-Rodriguez] neither objected to the judge’s [colloquy], nor made an
attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we consider his appellate argument under the rigorous
plain error standard.” United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). To succeed
on plain-error review, Solis-Rodriguez must show (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was
plain or obvious; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if Solis-Rodriguez makes these showings, we will exercise
9 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 10 of 27
our discretion to correct the error only if a refusal to do so would “seriously affect[] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting United States
v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H) requires the court to inform the
defendant of “any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term of
supervised release.” The magistrate judge first mentioned that Solis-Rodriguez faced two
counts under § 922(g)(5). The magistrate judge asked the prosecutor to explain the
maximum penalty, and the prosecutor responded, “[t]he maximum term of imprisonment
[is] 10 years.” J.A. 19. Shortly after, the magistrate judge described “the maximum penalty
for these offenses [as] 10 years imprisonment.” J.A. 20. According to Solis-Rodriguez, the
magistrate judge plainly erred by failing to clarify each count carried a maximum 10-year
penalty.
Considering this argument, we assume, without deciding, that the magistrate judge
erred in not informing Solis-Rodriguez that each individual offense carried up to 10 years’
imprisonment, for a maximum penalty of 20 years. We also assume that his error in doing
so was obvious under existing law. Even so, the error did not affect Solis-Rodriguez’s
substantial rights. To demonstrate that a Rule 11 error affected his substantial rights, Solis-
Rodriguez “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have
entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).
In several prior § 922(g) cases, we addressed a similar context where a court failed
to mention the potential applicability of the Armed Career Criminal Act at the plea
colloquy. In United States v. Hairston, at the time the defendant pled guilty, he thought
10 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 11 of 27
that he faced a maximum prison term of 30 years. 522 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2008). After
the plea, a probation officer recommended that the Act should apply. Id. at 338. Thus, at
the sentencing hearing, the defendant learned he faced a minimum of 45 years in jail. Id.
at 339. The district court rejected Hairston’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. After
finding that the district court erred in failing to notify Hairston of his full minimum
sentence, we reviewed that error for harmlessness. See id. at 341; see also Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(h). In doing so, we concluded that the government failed to meet its burden to show the
error was harmless. Hairston, 522 F.3d at 341–42. The record clearly showed a reasonable
probability that without the error, Hairston would not have entered the plea. 6 Id. We
rejected the government’s harmless error argument because of the significant disparity
between the sentences, Hairston’s statement to the district court that he would not have
pled guilty if he knew the full minimum sentence and his attempt to withdraw his plea. Id.
In United States v. Massenburg, the district court notified a felon-in-possession
defendant of his potential maximum prison term of 10 years. 564 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2009). Massenburg pled guilty before the probation officer recommended applying the
Armed Career Criminal Act and its mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’
imprisonment. Id. Massenburg objected to the PSR on several grounds, but he never raised
a Rule 11 error and did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. Accordingly, we reviewed
6 The Hairston defendant preserved the plea colloquy issue for appellate review by “seeking to withdraw his guilty plea below.” Hairston, 522 F.3d at 341. The court applied the same “reasonable probability” standard that we apply today, except the government carried the burden to show harmlessness. Id.
11 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 12 of 27
his plea colloquy appeal for plain error. Id. at 342. And although the district court plainly
erred, Massenburg had not established a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, he
would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 343 (quoting Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83).
Unlike the Hairston defendant, Massenburg never stated he would not have pled guilty
with full information. Id. Nor did he move to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at 343–44. And
“there does not appear to be any dispute that the case against Massenburg is a strong one,”
so Massenburg had little to gain by going to trial. Id. at 344. Thus, we concluded
Massenburg had not shown an effect on his substantial rights.
Most recently, we reversed a plea colloquy for plain error in United States v.
Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187, 195 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Lockhart pled guilty to felon-in-
possession under § 922(g)(1), with knowledge of the statute’s maximum of 10 years’
imprisonment. Id. at 190–91. Yet again, the PSR recommended applying the Armed Career
Criminal Act and its minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment. Id. at 191. And the district court
applied it, sentencing Lockhart to 180 months’ imprisonment. Id. Lockhart challenged the
plea colloquy on appeal, and we reviewed for plain error since he never objected below or
moved to withdraw his plea. Id. at 192. Lockhart also argued that the Supreme Court’s
decision in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), constituted an intervening change
in law requiring vacatur of his plea. Lockhart, 947 F.3d at 192. The parties agreed that the
magistrate judge plainly erred. Id. And we concluded that the error affected Lockhart’s
substantial rights—and was thus distinct from Massenburg—because (1) Lockhart gained
only an 8-month, 4.2% reduction in his total sentence by pleading guilty, compared with
Massenburg’s 23% reduction; and (2) appellate counsel represented that Lockhart would
12 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 13 of 27
go to trial following vacatur. Id. at 194–95. Finally, the Supreme Court’s intervening Rehaif
decision clarified the scienter requirements for § 922(g) offenses and was not available at
the time of the plea colloquy. Id. at 196. The combined prejudice of the plea colloquy and
Rehaif errors indicated a reasonable probability that Lockhart would not have pled guilty
absent the court’s errors.
Taking our precedent into account and considering this record, we find no
reasonable probability that Solis-Rodriguez would have proceeded to trial absent the
magistrate judge’s alleged error. Unlike the defendant in Hairston—and like the defendant
in Massenburg—Solis-Rodriguez neither objected to, nor moved to withdraw, his guilty
plea below. See Hairston, 522 F.3d at 341; Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343–44. Nor did he
indicate any surprise at the sentencing hearing when presented with the possibility of 20
years’ imprisonment. See Hairston, 522 F.3d at 342; Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343–44.
Like the defendant in Massenburg, Solis-Rodriguez faced the government’s strong
evidence—police testimony about finding the Hi-Point pistol on Solis-Rodriguez during
the first incident, his admission that he owned the nine-millimeter pistol used at The Taco
Bar shooting and security footage of that shooting. See Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 344.
Unlike the Lockhart defendant’s 8-month, 4.2% sentence reduction for pleading guilty,
Solis-Rodriguez’s plea slashed the applicable guidelines range from 210–240 months to
151–188 months. See Lockhart, 947 F.3d at 194. And unlike Lockhart’s intervening change
in law because of the Supreme Court’s Rehaif decision, no prejudicial and intervening
change of law has occurred here. See id. at 196.
13 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 14 of 27
In sum, we assume the magistrate judge plainly erred in describing the maximum
statutory penalty to Solis-Rodriguez. Even so, Solis-Rodriguez has failed to show a
reasonable probability that he would have gone to trial absent the magistrate judge’s
assumed error. He has, therefore, failed to meet his burden on plain-error review.
B. Sentencing
Solis-Rodriguez also argues his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because he
raised three nonfrivolous mitigating arguments—remorse, age and lack of violent criminal
history—that the district court failed to consider or address. When a party “draw[s]
arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed, an
aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an
individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its claim.”
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
Solis-Rodriguez never argued his remorse supported a sentence at the low end of
the guidelines range. Instead, he expressed remorse during his allocution. After the
allocution, Solis-Rodriguez’s counsel argued for a lower sentence but did not rely on
remorse. Because remorse was not a “non-frivolous reason[] presented for imposing a
different sentence,” the district court had no obligation to consider it. United States v. Ross,
912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).
The government argues that Solis-Rodriguez’s comments about his age and criminal
history didn’t amount to arguments either. And it is true that he could have clarified that
he was relying on these as mitigation arguments. For example, saying that “Mr. Solis-
Rodriguez stands before the Court a very young man,” J.A. 108, sounds as much like a
14 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 15 of 27
statement of fact as a mitigation argument. Counsel did not elaborate on this. He did not
say, for example, that Solis-Rodriguez’s brain wasn’t fully developed. But counsel’s
comments followed the district court’s invitation to argue for “the appropriate sentence in
this case.” J.A. 107. For that reason, we conclude here that Solis-Rodriguez did argue his
young age and lack of violent criminal history supported a sentence at the low end of the
guidelines range. These are nonfrivolous reasons that can support a lower sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 58 (2007) (age); Lynn, 592 F.3d at 581 (criminal
history). So, Solis-Rodriguez preserved his sentencing challenge regarding age and
criminal history. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578.
We review the procedural reasonableness of a criminal sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 41. In doing so, “[w]e consider ‘whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, gave the
parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.’” United States v.
Shields, 126 F.4th 356, 360 (4th Cir. 2025) (quoting Ross, 912 F.3d at 744). The district
court must conduct an “individualized assessment on the facts before the court” and
“explain adequately the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate review and to
promote the perception of fair sentencing.” United States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 153 (4th
Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Lewis, 958 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2020)).
As relevant here, the “district court must address or consider all non-frivolous
reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and explain why [it] has rejected those
arguments.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 744. And in a routine case with a within-Guidelines
15 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 16 of 27
sentence, the explanation “need not be elaborate or lengthy.” Fowler, 58 F.4th at 153
(quoting United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174–75 (4th Cir. 2020)). In fact, we can
sometimes “discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the context surrounding its
decision.” Ross, 912 F.3d at 745. In United States v. Montes-Pineda, the defendant argued
that sentence disparities between jurisdictions with “fast track” programs for immigrant
defendants and those without them supported a lower sentence. 445 F.3d 375, 379–81 (4th
Cir. 2006). And even though the district court did not explicitly mention any jurisdictional
disparities when issuing the sentence, “the court entertained arguments from both sides on
whether to grant Montes-Pineda’s request and engaged counsel in a discussion about the
disparities” between the two kinds of jurisdictions. Id. at 381. We had “no basis for
doubting that the district court considered Montes-Pineda’s contentions.” Id.
Turning to the case at hand, the district court adequately considered Solis-
Rodriguez’s age and lack of criminal history arguments and explained its reasoning. Two
elements of the record, taken together, demonstrate this.
First, the district court clarified—twice—that it considered “all of the [§ 3553(a)]
sentencing factors.” J.A. 114; see also J.A. 115 (“So the Court has considered all the
sentencing factors.”). Section 3553(a)(1) requires a sentencing court to consider “the nature
and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” The
age and criminal history arguments fall under the § 3553(a) “history and characteristics of
the defendant” factor. Thus, while the district court didn’t mention age and criminal history
specifically, it twice mentioned that it had considered a factor including those things. So,
16 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 17 of 27
the record indicates the district court considered Solis-Rodriguez’s arguments for a lower
sentence.
Considering non-frivolous arguments is one thing. Our precedent also requires an
explanation that allows for meaningful appellate review, which brings us to the second
element of the record that supports the district court’s conclusion. 7 See Gall, 552 U.S. at
50. The “context surrounding [the] district court’s explanation” sufficiently demonstrates
why the court rejected Solis-Rodriguez’s arguments about his age and criminal history.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 381. Recall that after describing what it considered, the court
“highlighted some [factors] that it [found] particularly important.” J.A. 115. It addressed
the “very, very disturbing” nature and circumstances of the offense. J.A. 114. The district
judge explained that as a father, he too shared concerns about his family. But he warned
that threats against one’s family do not “allow you to go and shoot and attempt to kill
somebody that is not attempting to do imminent death or seriously bodily injury to you.”
J.A. 115. Next, the court specifically noted a need to deter Solis-Rodriguez from further
criminal conduct. It also expressed the importance of generally deterring the resolution of
disputes through violence. And finally, the court explained that it needed to promote
respect for the rule of law.
Reviewing this discussion in its totality, the district court’s reasoning is sufficiently
clear. It considered the § 3553(a) factors that include age and criminal history. It then
7 Indeed, the government conceded that the district court’s statement that it considered all factors is not sufficient, on its own, to satisfy procedural reasonableness. See Oral Arg. at 34:53–35:10.
17 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 18 of 27
highlighted factors it felt were “particularly important.” J.A. 115. This indicates that the
court felt the highlighted factors were more important than—or said differently,
outweighed—others. 8 That explanation permits meaningful appellate review. Thus, the
Finally, although not necessary for, nor a basis of, our decision, we also note that
the district court asked counsel “if there’s any legal reason why this sentence as proposed
should not be imposed?” J.A. 121. By doing so, the court offered both parties an
opportunity to raise concerns with the sentence. Neither did. In light of that silence, we
take this opportunity to encourage some efficiency. To minimize the risk of overlooking
any unaddressed objections, district courts would be wise to ask the parties if they have
any concerns with the sentence. A district court can be even more precise by asking if there
are any objections to the sentence that the court has failed to address. And as for the
lawyers, bringing any unaddressed objections to the court’s attention while there is an
opportunity to fix any perceived problems seems consistent with the duties defense counsel
and the government owe as officers of the court and is compatible with the lawyers’ duties
to zealously represent their clients. 9
8 At oral argument, Solis-Rodriguez’s counsel conceded the district court would not have erred if it said the highlighted factors “outweighed” Solis-Rodriguez’s age and lack of criminal history. See Oral Arg. at 13:14–13:31. 9 Our concurring colleague believes Solis-Rodriguez forfeited his sentencing challenge by failing to raise it in response to the district court. See Concurring Op. at 21– 22. If so, we would apply plain error review to Solis-Rodriguez’s procedural unreasonableness challenge. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577. But for two reasons, we decline to
18 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 19 of 27
III.
For these reasons, Solis-Rodriguez’s conviction and sentence are,
AFFIRMED.
reach this issue. One, the government never raised this argument in its brief. So, we lack Solis-Rodriguez’s position on whether he forfeited his challenge. Two, we have already concluded the district court imposed a procedurally reasonable sentence within its discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If Solis-Rodriguez cannot show abuse of discretion, applying the more difficult plain-error standard of review will not change our conclusion.
19 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 20 of 27
TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I fully join Judge Quattlebaum’s well-reasoned opinion with a modest exception to
Part II.B. I agree that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. Therefore, Solis-Rodriguez has
failed to prevail on his sentencing challenge under both the harmless error and plain error
standards of review. I write separately to address, in more detail, my view that plain error
review is appropriate in this case.
District courts have certain well-defined duties when sentencing criminal
defendants. The court must properly calculate the defendant’s advisory guidelines range,
give the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, consider the § 3553
factors, and sufficiently explain the selected sentence. See United States v. Shields, 126
F.4th 356, 360 (4th Cir. 2025). “Directly relevant here is the requirement that a sentencing
court address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a particular sentence, and if
it rejects those arguments, explain why in a sufficiently detailed manner to allow this Court
to conduct a meaningful appellate review.” Id. (cleaned up).
Here, the district court properly calculated the advisory guideline range and gave
the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence. The court then noted that
it had considered all of the sentencing factors, and highlighted the factors that it found
particularly important—specifically the “very, very disturbing” nature and circumstances
20 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 21 of 27
of the offense, the need to deter Solis-Rodriguez from further criminal conduct, and the
need to promote respect for the law. J.A. 114.
But the district court did not immediately impose a sentence. Instead, the district
court advised the parties that it would first “propose a sentence that it believes is sufficient
but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing,” and “invite[d] the
attorneys to listen to the proposed sentence before it [was] actually imposed so if there is a
legal reason why it should not be imposed, [they could] so advise,” J.A. 115-16 (emphasis
added). After announcing the proposed sentence, and providing the basis for it, the court
then asked “counsel if there [was] any legal reason why th[e] sentence as proposed should
not be imposed.” J.A. 121. Defense counsel responded, “Just the issues that we previously
raised that the Court overruled.” Id. 1 At no point did defense counsel assert that the district
court had not sufficiently considered his mitigation arguments, nor did counsel challenge
the adequacy of the district court’s statement of reasons for the proposed sentence. Hearing
no further objection or argument, the district court imposed the sentence as proposed.
I believe that the district court’s question to counsel prior to imposing the proposed
sentence, and defense counsel’s silence in the face of that question, operated as a forfeiture
1 The issues raised and overruled were defense counsel’s objection to the attempted murder enhancement and his argument that defendant’s two § 922(g)(5) offenses were a continuing offense with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The district court assured defense counsel that these objections were preserved.
21 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 22 of 27
of defendant’s argument that the district court procedurally erred in imposing the
sentence—triggering plain error review.
“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional
right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the
failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to
determine it.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993) (cleaned up). The failure
to do so has consequences: the “silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error
rule,” and the “reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect
of any error on substantial rights.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). This
“[p]lain error review in the sentencing context serves worthy purposes, including inducing
the timely raising of claims and objections.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th
Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).
Thus, the district court has specific responsibilities when sentencing defendants.
But so does defense counsel. “[T]he value of finality requires defense counsel to be on his
toes, not just the judge, and the defendant who just sits there when a mistake can be fixed
cannot just sit there when he speaks up later on.” Vonn, 535 U.S. at 73. He must
demonstrate plain error on appeal. This “contemporaneous objection rule [also] prevents
a litigant from ‘sandbagging’ the court—remaining silent about his objection and belatedly
raising the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor.” Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); id. at 140 (“[R]equiring the objection means the defendant
22 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 23 of 27
cannot ‘game’ the system, waiting to see if the sentence later strikes him as satisfactory,
and then seeking a second bite at the apple by raising the claim.”) (cleaned up). When the
district court is apprised of the claim, it “can grant an immediate remedy . . . and thus avoid
the delay and expense of a full appeal.” Id.
In this case, appellant’s counsel (who was not defense counsel at sentencing) argued
that the district court failed to adequately consider the arguments and failed to adequately
explain the sentence at the hearing—necessitating a full resentencing. When questioned
as to whether plain error review should apply because defense counsel did not speak up in
response to the district court’s inquiry, appellate counsel relied upon our decision in Lynn
to argue that there was no such obligation. I disagree.
In Lynn, we held that defense counsel is not required “to complain about a judicial
choice after it has been made” to preserve an objection. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578 (emphasis
added) (cleaned up). We observed that “[r]equiring a party to lodge an explicit objection
after the district court explanation would saddle busy district courts with the burden of
sitting through an objection—probably formulaic—in every criminal case.” Id. (emphasis
added) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 910 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“[T]he rules do not require a litigant to complain about a judicial choice after it has been
made. Such a complaint is properly called, not an objection, but an exception”—which the
rules do not require.) (emphasis added).
But that is not what happened here. The district court ensured that the parties
understood that it would first propose a sentence. The district court then explained the
23 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 24 of 27
proposed sentence and the reasons for it. And before imposing the proposed sentence, the
court invited counsel to point out any legal reason as to why the sentence should not be
imposed. In other words, the court was inviting further argument and objections before
imposing the sentence. If counsel believed that the court had failed to sufficiently consider
a mitigating argument or that its explanation was inadequate, this was the opportunity to
speak up. Otherwise, counsel could indeed sandbag the court, standing quietly by and
gambling on the prospect of a remand for resentencing if this court, in hindsight, questions
whether the explanation was sufficient.
I concur with the majority’s determination that the district court did not commit
procedural error in imposing Solis-Rodriquez’s sentence. I also applaud the majority’s
decision to encourage judicial efficiency by recommending that district courts ask the
parties if they have concerns about the sentence or if there are any objections that the court
failed to address. But I would go farther, confront the question of what standard of review
applies, and provide some needed guidance—even if only prospectively—to our
hardworking district courts.
This court receives countless appeals by criminal defendants premised on the failure
of a sentencing court to tick through each nonfrivolous argument offered in support of a
lower sentence and explain how it was considered and why it was rejected. District courts
unquestionably have duties to the parties and this court, but the parties have duties too.
When a district court, following argument, proposes a sentence and invites the attorneys to
24 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 25 of 27
tell the court if there is any legal infirmity, the duty of counsel becomes paramount. If
counsel believes the court has failed to sufficiently consider an argument or adequately
explain the proposed sentence, he should not be allowed to sit silently by, preserve an
opportunity to complain about it on appeal, and put the government to the task of proving
harmless error.
I also commend the district court in this case for its attempt to elicit objections to
the proposed sentence, including any objection to the sufficiency of the district court’s
explanation for the proposed sentence. If Solis-Rodriguez’s counsel “had objections to the
sentence imposed or, more particularly, to the decision-making process, he could and
should have raised them at a time and in such a way as to afford the trial judge an
opportunity to correct any error, clarify any ambiguity or elaborate as necessary.” United
States v. Steele, 603 F.3d 803, 807 (10th Cir. 2010). And because he did not, plain error
was, in my judgment, the proper standard of review.
Prospectively, I also encourage our district courts to take steps to verify with the
parties that the court has adequately addressed all of the arguments for a sentence they have
advanced and sufficiently explained the court’s reasons for a proposed sentence before it
is imposed. This will “allow[] the judge to immediately remedy omissions or clarify and
supplement inadequate explanations,” United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 258
(3rd Cir. 2014), and serve the additional purpose of “guiding appellate review,” United
States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 873 (6th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Pyles, 862
F.3d 82, 87 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“Where either the defense or the prosecution believe that the
25 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 26 of 27
trial court has overlooked an argument in favor of mitigating or enhancing the sentence,
we should ‘induce the timely raising of claims and objections, which gives the district court
the opportunity to consider and resolve them,’ and thereby ‘correct or avoid the mistake so
that it cannot possibly affect the ultimate outcome.’”) (quoting Puckett, 556 U.S. at 134);
United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990) (noting that the sentencing
“appeal could have been avoided if the court, after pronouncing sentence, had asked
counsel whether there were any objections—to the sentence or to the manner in which the
court pronounced it—other than those previously stated for the record.”). Such an inquiry
will “ensure that the parties, especially the defendant, have been heard and that the record
is complete for purposes of appeal”; and any burden associated with this approach “pales
in comparison to the time and resources required to correct errors through a lengthy appeal
and resentencing.” United States v. Hunter, 809 F.3d 677, 682 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned
up); see also Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d at 258 (“Our strong interest in judicial economy,
heightened in these times of fiscal restraint and judicial budgetary concerns, weighs heavily
in favor of a rule under which the defendant must contemporaneously object to concerns
regarding the procedural reasonableness of a sentence.”).
I see no reason why these important considerations should not also lead this court
to require that the parties contemporaneously object, when given the opportunity, to the
sufficiency of the district court’s consideration of a mitigating argument or its explanation
for a proposed sentence. If the opportunity is given and squandered, an assertion of error
26 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4654 Doc: 68 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 27 of 27
in the court’s explanation later on appeal should be deemed forfeited and therefore subject
to plain error analysis. 2
2 My colleagues have declined to address the question of whether Solis-Rodriguez forfeited his procedural reasonableness challenge because the government did not raise this argument in its brief and a finding of forfeiture would not change the outcome of this appeal. They are correct on both counts. But the question of whether the issue was forfeited by the defendant affects our standard of review. And I would take the opportunity to reach that issue. See United States v. Naum, 134 F.4th 234, 241 (4th Cir. 2025) (“[C]ourts must apply the proper standard of review even if the parties have not.”); Sierra Club v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260, 286 (4th Cir. 2018) (“[P]arties cannot waive the proper standard of review by failing to argue it.”) (cleaned up); United States v. Escobar, 866 F.3d 333, 339 n.13 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“A party cannot waive, concede, or abandon the applicable standard of review.”); see also Moody v. Netchoice, LLC., 603 U.S. 707, 779-780 (2024) (Alito, concurring) (“It is one thing to allow parties to forfeit claims, defenses, or lines of argument; it would be quite another to allow parties to stipulate or bind a court to the application of an incorrect legal standard.”). In any event, even if the government could forfeit the standard of review applicable to sentencing errors, we can always exercise our “discretion to reach a forfeited issue.” Stokes v. Stirling, 64 F.4th 131, 136 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023). When defense counsel remains silent in the face of a district court’s request that it be advised of any potential sentencing errors before sentence is formally imposed, sandbagging courts in derogation of concerns for judicial efficiency and economy, I would do so.