Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897

Background

Rosales‑Mireles pleaded guilty to illegal reentry; the presentence report double‑counted a prior misdemeanor, producing a Guidelines range of 77–96 months instead of the correct 70–87 months.
He did not object at sentencing; the district court sentenced him to 78 months (one month above the lower end of the mistaken range).
On appeal the Fifth Circuit found the Guidelines miscalculation was plain and affected substantial rights (reasonable probability of a different outcome) but refused to remand under Rule 52(b), applying a heightened "shock the conscience" standard for Olano's fourth prong.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the proper application of Olano's fourth prong (when appellate courts should correct forfeited plain errors).
The Court held that a plain Guidelines miscalculation that affects substantial rights will ordinarily warrant vacatur and remand under Rule 52(b) because it typically undermines fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plain Guidelines miscalculation that affects substantial rights ordinarily warrants relief under Rule 52(b)	Rosales‑Mireles: such an error usually creates a reasonable probability of a longer sentence and therefore ordinarily satisfies Olano's fourth prong	United States: relief should be rare; Fifth Circuit's "shock the conscience" (or similar strict) standard is appropriate to avoid sandbagging and preserve Rule 52(b)’s sparing use	Held: In the ordinary case, a forfeited plain Guidelines miscalculation that affects substantial rights will seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation and warrants vacatur and remand under Rule 52(b) absent countervailing factors.
Proper scope of Olano's fourth prong	The fourth prong requires case‑specific review but should not be narrowly confined to only shocking or indicting errors	The fourth prong should be applied sparingly and only in exceptional or shocking circumstances	Held: The Fifth Circuit’s heightened "shock the conscience" formulation is too narrow; courts should correct ordinary inadvertent Guidelines errors that meet Olano's first three requirements unless case‑specific countervailing factors justify leaving the sentence intact.
Whether a sentence within the correct Guidelines range forecloses relief	Rosales‑Mireles: being within the corrected range does not preclude relief because the district court never considered the correct range and the sentence's reliability is undermined	United States: sentence within the correct range is presumptively reasonable and less likely to injure fairness or integrity	Held: Whether a sentence is within the corrected range is not dispositive; appellate courts must first ensure no significant procedural error—if the district court miscalculated, reliability is undermined and relief may be appropriate.
Policy concerns (sandbagging, judicial resources)	Rosales‑Mireles: sandbagging is unlikely and speculative in sentencing context; resentencing is comparatively inexpensive	United States: lowering the plain‑error bar will incentivize sandbagging and increase remands	Held: Concerns about sandbagging and resource burdens do not justify the Fifth Circuit’s heightened standard; the realities of sentencing make deliberate forbearance unlikely and resentencing is not as burdensome as retrial.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (establishing the four‑part plain‑error framework)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. _ (2016) (holding that an incorrect Guidelines range often establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome for Olano’s prejudice prong)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (explaining the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (failure to calculate the correct Guidelines range is procedural error)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review requires ensuring no significant procedural error before considering substantive reasonableness)
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) (noting Rule 52(b) relief should be exercised sparingly)
United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157 (1936) (Rule 52(b) permits correction of plain error that affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (Olano’s fourth prong demands case‑specific, fact‑intensive inquiry)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (procedural errors that do not affect substantive outcome may not satisfy Olano’s fourth prong)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (rejecting automatic satisfaction of plain‑error review when the error likely did not affect the verdict)