Holguin-Hernandez v. United States

This case asked whether a defendant who argued for a shorter sentence had to make another formal objection after the sentence was announced to challenge its length later. The Supreme Court said no: asking for a shorter sentence was enough to preserve review of whether the sentence was unreasonably long.

The Court sided with Holguin-Hernandez and said his request for a shorter sentence preserved review of whether the sentence was too long. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

It makes it easier for criminal defendants to challenge a sentence as too long without using extra formal words after sentencing. For example, someone who asked the trial judge for less prison time can still seek review by a higher court.

The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. In future sentencing cases, courts and lawyers must apply this rule when deciding whether a defendant preserved this kind of challenge.

The fight was over whether asking for a shorter sentence was enough to keep a later challenge alive. The Supreme Court said it was.

People sentenced in federal court can still argue a prison term was too long if they already asked for less time. That removes one procedural trap.

This Supreme Court case is finished. Lower courts must follow this rule in future cases about whether a sentence-length challenge was preserved.