United States v. Agustine Sanchez-Hernandez, 927 F.3d 851

Sanchez-Hernandez, a removed alien, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after entering the U.S. in 2017; sentencing followed a Presentence Report (PSR).
PSR assigned offense level 17 and criminal-history category IV (range 37–46 months) based in part on two 2010 Texas convictions for indecency with a child and sexual assault of a child; those convictions were treated as "crimes of violence," triggering an extra criminal-history point under § 4A1.1(e).
At sentencing the defendant acknowledged the PSR (with one minor factual correction) but did not object to the classification of the prior convictions; counsel argued they were remote and overrepresented his history.
The district court adopted the PSR but increased the criminal-history category to V (range 46–57 months) based on recidivism—specifically that Sanchez-Hernandez had recently served 41 months for prior illegal reentry and reentered shortly after release—and sentenced him to 48 months.
On appeal (plain-error review), Sanchez-Hernandez argued the district court erred in treating the Texas sex convictions as crimes of violence and thus improperly added the criminal-history point that raised his Guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred by treating prior Texas sex convictions as "crimes of violence" and adding 1 criminal-history point under § 4A1.1(e)	Sanchez-Hernandez: treating the convictions as crimes of violence was error that increased his Guidelines range and thus affected his substantial rights	Government: concedes the first two prongs (error and plainness) for Rule 52(b), but argues the court’s overall sentencing rationale eliminates prejudice; also contends forfeiture/waiver issues	No reversible plain error: defendant fails prong three (no reasonable probability of a different outcome). The district court based sentence on recidivism independent of Guidelines range, so any error in classification did not affect substantial rights

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (sets four-part plain-error test under Rule 52(b))
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (party concession cannot override legal interpretation questions)
EEOC v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 476 U.S. 19 (same principle about parties not being able to waive legal interpretation)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (erroneous Guidelines usually suffice to show prejudice under plain-error prong three, but not when judge gives independent sentencing reasons)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (Guidelines range may be the basis for sentence; discussion of when departures/variances relate to Guidelines)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (distinguishes forfeiture from waiver in Rule 52(b) analysis)