On direct appeal, Mr. Echeverria-Benitez argued his twenty-seven month sentence for illegal reentry after removal was unreasonable. Mr. Echeverria-Benitez, agreed review was for plain error because he did not present this issue to the District Court. The Government responded that this claim was without merit because Mr. Echeverria-Benitez did not show plain error on the issue of the need for a reasonable sentence. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the District Court. Mr. Echeverria-Benitez submits the decision is in need of the supervision of this Court and hence this Petition deserves further review.

On the same day as the sentencing in the above case, Mr. Echeverria-Benitez pleaded true to and was sentenced on a motion to revoke supervised release. The district Court sentenced Mr. Echeverria-Benitez to serve nine months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to run consecutively to the above twenty-seven month sentence on the illegal reentry. Mr. Echeverria-Benitez argued the imposition of this punishment constituted reversible error because it was imposed based on the perceived need for retribution expressed by the District Court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled "an error is not plain if it requires the extension of precedent." (Appendix A) (quoting United States v. Vargas-Soto, 700 F.3d 180, 182 (5th Cir. 2012)). Respectfully, this decision conflicts with the relevant decisions of this Court and hence a compelling reason is present in support of this Court's discretionary review. Accordingly, Mr. Echeverria-Benitez contends this Petition deserves to proceed to further review.

Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release was unreasonable and constituted reversible error