United States v. Joel Renteria-Martinez, 847 F.3d 297

Defendant Joel Humberto Renteria‑Martinez pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The PSR characterized a 2000 Texas conviction as "possession with intent to deliver" cocaine and applied a 16‑level U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement, producing a guideline range of 57–71 months.
The written Texas judgment, however, described the conviction as "unlawful possession of a controlled substance" (second‑degree) and omitted "intent to deliver." Other state documents (docket, judicial confession, motion to reduce charge) included "with intent to deliver."
Renteria‑Martinez did not object in district court to the PSR or the guidelines range; the district court adopted the PSR and sentenced him to 57 months. He raised the enhancement on appeal for the first time.
The Fifth Circuit found the district court erred in categorizing the final judgment as a qualifying drug‑trafficking conviction, but reviewed under plain error and declined to correct the error, affirming the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2000 Texas conviction qualified as a "drug trafficking offense" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) to trigger a 16‑level enhancement	The Texas judgment shows only simple possession (second‑degree) without "intent to deliver," so it does not meet the Guidelines' definition of a drug‑trafficking offense	The surrounding state‑court record (docket, judicial confession, prosecutorial motion) shows the offense was possession with intent to deliver; the judgment is a scrivener’s error	The court concluded the district court erred: the judgment itself did not fit the Guidelines’ criteria; but on plain error review the court declined to correct the error and affirmed the sentence

United States v. Hernandez, 690 F.3d 613 (5th Cir.) (plain‑error standard where defendant failed to object in district court)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (four‑part plain‑error test)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct.) (plain‑error framework)
United States v. Sarabia‑Martinez, 779 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.) (possession alone does not equal trafficking for guideline purposes)
United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir.) (appellate consideration of supplemented record)
United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. en banc) (when to exercise discretion under plain‑error fourth prong)
United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.) (types of errors warranting reversal under fourth prong)
United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643 (5th Cir.) (declining to exercise plain‑error discretion in recidivist contexts)