United States v. Miguel Rivera Santiago

── United States v. Miguel Rivera Santiago ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11819 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11819 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MIGUEL RIVERA SANTIAGO, a.k.a. Cabeza de Pollo, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00160-BJD-MCR-2 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Miguel Rivera Santiago appeals from the imposition of a 37-month prison term following the revocation USCA11 Case: 25-11819 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11819 of his supervised release. He argues that the district court plainly erred by relying on retribution for his underlying offense when im- posing a revocation sentence, in violation of Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025). After careful review, we affirm. I. We generally apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion stand- ard when reviewing the reasonableness of sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106–07 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). But when the defendant failed to object at the time of sentencing to the proce- dural reasonableness of his sentence upon supervised release, we review only for plain error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). We find plain error only if there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that has affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). When those requirements are met, “we may exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation modified). “‘Plain’ error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal.” Id. at 1325. “Substantial rights are affected if there is a reasonable probability of a different result absent the error.” Id. USCA11 Case: 25-11819 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-11819 Opinion of the Court 3 II. Upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a de- fendant has violated a condition of supervised release, a district court may revoke the remaining term of supervised release and im- pose a term of imprisonment after considering certain factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Sweeting, 437 F.3d at 1107. The relevant factors that a court must consider before imposing a sentence upon revo- cation are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for deter- rence; (3) the need to protect the pub