United States v. Mario Sanchez-Arvizu, 893 F.3d 312

Background

Sanchez-Arvizu pleaded guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2)) and was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment.
Presentence report applied a 16‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior Texas felony conviction for indecency with a child (Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1)).
That enhancement produced a 2015 Guidelines range of 41–51 months; without the enhancement the (then-anticipated) amended Guidelines would have produced a much lower range.
Sanchez-Arvizu did not object at sentencing; counsel mentioned forthcoming Guidelines amendments that would reduce the range. The district court accepted the 41–51 range and sentenced at the low end (42 months).
After sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Esquivel‑Quintana, holding the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the victim to be under 16, making Texas’s statute (victim under 17) categorically broader.
The Government conceded the § 2L1.2 enhancement was erroneous under Esquivel‑Quintana; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sanchez‑Arvizu’s Texas indecency conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2015) as "sexual abuse of a minor"	The conviction did not match the generic definition because Texas statute covers victims under 17, while federal definition requires under 16	Government conceded error post-Esquivel‑Quintana but relied on original sentencing	Court: Texas offense is categorically broader; enhancement was applied in error
Whether the error is "clear or obvious" under plain‑error review	Error is clear after Esquivel‑Quintana	Government conceded clarity	Court: prong two satisfied — error is clear and obvious
Whether the error affected substantial rights (reasonable probability of a lesser sentence)	Sentencing range anchored to incorrect Guidelines (41–51); correct range would be much lower, so reasonable probability of a lesser sentence	Government argued defendant’s recidivism and sentencing discretion negate prejudice	Court: prong three satisfied — error affected substantial rights (42 months was double top of correct range)
Whether to exercise discretion to correct the error (fourth Olano/Puckett prong)	Correcting is warranted because large disparity (21 months) undermines fairness; record silent whether court would impose same sentence absent enhancement	Government argued recidivism and prior precedent counsel against reversal	Court: exercised discretion to correct; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (standard for plain error review)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (framework for plain‑error factors)
Esquivel‑Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (held "sexual abuse of a minor" requires victim <16)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily shows reasonable probability of different outcome)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (Guidelines anchor sentencing discretion)
United States v. Carlile, 884 F.3d 554 (Fifth Circuit plain‑error review authority)
United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (substantial‑rights prejudice standard in Fifth Circuit)
United States v. Prieto, 801 F.3d 547 (plain‑error elements articulation)
United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (Fifth Circuit discussion of reasonable probability of different outcome)