United States v. Eleazar Perez-Mateo, 926 F.3d 216

In May 2018 Perez‑Mateo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326). PSR using the 2016 Guidelines scored him with total offense level 13 and criminal history category IV, yielding a 24–30 month range.
The PSR assessed two criminal history points for a February 14, 2007 misdemeanor conviction (aiding and abetting illegal entry) after a later probation revocation produced 150 days’ confinement.
Neither party objected to the PSR; at sentencing Perez‑Mateo confirmed the PSR was correct and the district court adopted it, then sentenced him to 30 months (top of Guidelines).
On appeal Perez‑Mateo argued for the first time that the 2007 conviction should not count under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e) because the relevant ten‑year period requires commencement of the instant offense by February 14, 2017.
The PSR indicated Perez‑Mateo was deported in March 2016 and reentered on March 2, 2018; thus the 2007 sentence was more than ten years before the instant offense and should not have been counted.
The Fifth Circuit found the PSR dates unambiguous, held plain error occurred that affected substantial rights, and vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Perez‑Mateo's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the Feb. 2007 conviction counts in criminal history under §4A1.2(e)	The revocation confinement occurred in 2009 and the instant offense commenced Mar. 2, 2018, so the 2007 sentence fell outside the ten‑year lookback and should not count	Implicit district‑court factual finding could support an earlier reentry date; factual disputes should be resolved by the district court	The PSR unambiguously shows reentry on Mar. 2, 2018; the 2007 sentence did not fall within ten years and should not have been counted (plain error)
Whether the error is "plain" under Rule 52(b)	The miscalculation is clear from the PSR dates adopted by the court	The issue presents factual questions that defeat plain‑error relief	The error was plain because the PSR dates were unambiguous and adopted by the court
Whether the error affected substantial rights and merits correction	The district court relied on the incorrect 24–30 mo. range when imposing the top‑of‑range sentence; thus a reasonable probability exists the outcome would differ	The court referenced unscored criminal history and repeated deportations, so the same sentence would likely have been imposed	The record shows the district court relied on the Guidelines range; Perez‑Mateo proved effect on substantial rights and relief is warranted; vacated and remanded

Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (plain‑error review when defendant failed to object to Guidelines miscalculation)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (ordinarily correct plain Guidelines errors affecting substantial rights; consider countervailing factors)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (standard for forfeited error review)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (definition of plain error)
United States v. Ponce, 896 F.3d 726 (5th Cir.) (commencement of illegal‑reentry offense is triggering date for §4A1.2)
United States v. Nino‑Carreon, 910 F.3d 194 (5th Cir.) (PSR dates can preclude argument of an implicit earlier date)
United States v. Urbina‑Fuentes, 900 F.3d 687 (5th Cir.) (criminal history is a §3553(a) factor but does not resolve whether procedural error affects fairness of proceedings)
United States v. Lawrence, 920 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation)