United States v. Channing Miller, 657 F. App'x 265

Miller pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine; PSR initially attributed 4.469 kg to him (gross weight) but lab net weight was 3.499 kg.
Parties and probation agreed at sentencing to use the lower net quantity, reducing the Guidelines offense level from 25 to 23 and the range from 100–125 months to 84–105 months; the district court orally adopted the revised 84–105 range as unopposed.
After discussing Miller’s recidivism and other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Miller to 120 months’ imprisonment. Miller raised no objection at sentencing.
The Statement of Reasons (SOR) filed later incorrectly recited the original PSR figures (offense level 25, range 100–125) and stated the sentence was within-Guidelines, leaving blanks where an above-Guidelines explanation would appear.
On appeal (plain-error review), Miller argued the district court plainly erred by imposing the 120-month term based on the erroneous original Guidelines range rather than the corrected 84–105 range adopted on the record.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, finding clear error that affected Miller’s substantial rights and warranted correction to protect the fairness and integrity of proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred by imposing a 120‑month sentence based on the original (erroneous) Guidelines range rather than the corrected 84–105 range adopted on the record	Miller: The court’s failure to acknowledge the 120‑month sentence as above the corrected range and the inaccuracies in the SOR show the court relied on the original 100–125 range when fashioning the sentence	Government: The judge’s remarks about recidivism justify a long sentence and no "magic words" are required; the record shows the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of range	Court: Vacated and remanded — plain error shown: (1) clear/obvious error (120 months is 15 months above corrected range while within original range); (2) affected substantial rights (reasonable probability of a lower sentence absent the error); (3) correction warranted to protect fairness, integrity, and public confidence

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing courts must adequately explain chosen sentence including deviations from Guidelines)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved errors)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (application of an incorrect, higher Guidelines range ordinarily establishes prejudice for plain‑error purposes)
United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432 (5th Cir.) (district court must explain reasons for non‑Guidelines sentence; no "robotic incantations" required)
United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir.) (vacatur where sentence significantly exceeded corrected Guidelines range and court did not state it would impose same sentence regardless of range)