United States v. Agustine Sanchez-Hernandez, 931 F.3d 408

Sanchez-Hernandez, a three-time illegal entrant, pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after crossing the Rio Grande in 2017.
He had prior Texas convictions (2010) for indecency with a child and sexual assault of a child based on the same incident (14-year-old victim); sentenced to concurrent two-year terms and required to register as a sex offender.
A 2014 illegal-reentry conviction produced a 41-month federal sentence; he returned to the U.S. soon after release.
The PSR assigned 7 criminal-history points and, treating the sex offenses as "crimes of violence," added 1 point under U.S.S.G. §4A1.1(e), yielding Criminal History Category IV and a Guidelines range of 37–46 months (alternative: 30–37 months if that point were excluded).
At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR but found Category V better reflected recidivism and sentenced Sanchez-Hernandez to 48 months; defendant objected to substantive reasonableness and appealed, raising for the first time that the sex convictions were not crimes of violence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred by treating Sanchez‑Hernandez’s prior Texas sex convictions as "crimes of violence" and thus adding 1 criminal-history point under U.S.S.G. §4A1.1(e)	Sanchez‑Hernandez: The sex convictions are not crimes of violence; the added point was error that changed his Guidelines category and range	Government: Concedes the first two prongs of plain-error (error, plain) but argues the court’s ultimate sentence was driven by recidivism not the Guidelines calculation	Court affirmed: Even if error occurred, defendant fails plain‑error prong 3 (no reasonable probability the sentence would differ); district court based sentence on recidivism independent of the Guidelines range

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (sets the four-part plain-error framework)
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (party concessions do not bind the court on legal questions)
EEOC v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 476 U.S. 19 (same principle regarding litigant concessions)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture for Rule 52(b) review)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (explains prejudice prong when Guidelines range is erroneous and when a district court’s explanation may negate prejudice)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (discusses when the Guidelines serve as the basis for sentencing)
Griffith v. United States, 871 F.3d 1321 (Eleventh Circuit on limits of Molina‑Martinez’s presumption)
United States v. Sanchez‑Hernandez, 927 F.3d 851 (prior panel opinion withdrawn and substituted by this opinion)