United States v. Jorge Matias-Sanchez, 16-51462

In Sept. 2015 Border Patrol arrested Jorge Matias-Sanchez for illegal reentry after removal; he pleaded guilty to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 charges.
The PSR relied on prior California conviction: a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) from Aug. 30, 2005 for felony meth possession, terminated Sept. 29, 2005; Matias‑Sanchez was later sentenced to 90 days (Sept. 4, 2008) after probation expired.
The PSR assigned two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(b) for that prior sentence, placing him in CHC VI and producing a higher Guidelines range than if those points were omitted.
Matias‑Sanchez did not object at sentencing to counting the DEJ-related sentence; he raised the timing/counting issue for the first time on appeal.
On appeal he argued the DEJ termination is governed by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)/(e), so the original sentence fell outside the applicable 10‑year window and should not have been counted.
The district court sentenced him to 60 months; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying plain‑error review and declining to exercise its discretion to correct any alleged error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of a DEJ qualifies as a "revocation" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k) so the prior sentence counts only if imposed within the applicable 10‑year window	Matias‑Sanchez: DEJ termination triggers § 4A1.2(k)/(e), so the 2005 sentence fell outside the 10‑year period and should not be counted	Government: dispute whether a DEJ termination is a "revocation" subject to § 4A1.2(k); in any event, sentencing court applied guidelines and counted the prior sentence	Court did not decide the statutory scope; assuming arguendo § 4A1.2 applies, declined to correct the alleged error under plain‑error fourth‑prong discretion and affirmed sentence
Whether appellate review is barred/limited by plain‑error standard because defendant failed to object at sentencing	Matias‑Sanchez: raises issue for first time on appeal but argues plain error exists	Government: argues plain‑error standard applies and relief is unwarranted given facts	Court applied plain‑error review, found arguable error but refused to exercise discretion to remedy it (no miscarriage of justice)

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard and prongs)
United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (en banc) (framework for fourth‑prong plain‑error discretionary relief)
United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148 (first‑time‑raised‑on‑appeal reviewed for plain error)
United States v. Rosales‑Mireles, 850 F.3d 246 (Fifth Circuit decision referenced re: Supreme Court review of fourth‑prong application)
United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (discussion of miscarriage‑of‑justice analysis under fourth prong)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (holding on pleading priors; cited for foreclosed issue)