United States v. Jose Flores, 862 F.3d 486

Flores pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (Sept. 2015) while subject to a two‑year supervised‑release term from an earlier illegal‑reentry conviction.
The district court combined sentencing on the new reentry conviction and the supervised‑release revocation.
Guidelines ranges: reentry 21–27 months; revocation 8–14 months. Flores asked for 21 months (reentry) and a consecutive 6 months (revocation) for a 24‑month total.
The court imposed 21 months for reentry and 10 months for revocation, and—relying on United States v. Brown—believed it was required to impose the sentences consecutively, producing a 31‑month total.
Post‑2003 Guidelines (per Huff) give district courts discretion to run such sentences concurrently or consecutively; the district court’s reliance on Brown was therefore erroneous, but Flores did not object at sentencing and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in believing it was required to impose consecutive sentences	District court’s view was incorrect under post‑2003 Guidelines; consecutive term not mandatory and the error affected substantial rights	Government conceded the district court’s belief was erroneous but argued correction not warranted on plain‑error review	Error was plain but this court declined to correct it under plain‑error doctrine; sentence affirmed

United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1991) (earlier Fifth Circuit decision the district court relied upon)
United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (explains post‑2003 Guidelines give courts discretion to run sentences concurrent or consecutive)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review framework)
United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (caution that forfeiture rule should bend only to prevent grave injustice)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for assessing whether forfeited error affected substantial rights)