United States v. Mims, 992 F.3d 406

Tonya Mims previously convicted twice for large-scale financial fraud (2005 mail fraud; 2015 wire fraud), received prison and supervised release (SR).
In 2019 she was charged with access-device fraud while on SR; probation alleged she committed a new crime and violated SR notification and employment restrictions.
At revocation, Mims pleaded guilty to the substantive count and pleaded true to the SR violations; the probation worksheet misclassified her most serious violation as Grade A (advisory 15–21 months) instead of Grade B (correct advisory 6–12 months).
The district court relied on the incorrect 15–21 month advisory range, revoked SR, and sentenced Mims to 21 months on revocation (plus 14 months on the new conviction, to run consecutively); Mims did not object at sentencing.
On appeal, the parties agree the advisory range was erroneous; Mims asserts plain error requiring vacatur, and the Fifth Circuit majority affirmed, holding plain error review’s first two prongs were met but declining to exercise discretion to remedy the error given recidivism, aggravating factors, and that the sentence was within the statutory maximum; Judge Haynes dissented and would remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s reliance on an incorrect advisory Guidelines range at SR revocation was plain error requiring vacatur	Govt: Even if range was wrong, record shows court would have imposed same sentence; error did not affect substantial rights	Mims: Incorrect advisory range (15–21 v. correct 6–12) was clear/plain error and likely affected the outcome, so sentence must be vacated and remanded	Affirmed: First two plain-error prongs satisfied; court assumed arguendo third prong but declined to correct error under fourth prong given Mims’s repeated fraud, aggravating factors, and sentence within statutory max

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (error in Guidelines range can establish reasonable probability of different outcome)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (framework for plain-error discretionary relief)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (limits on appellate discretion in correcting sentencing errors; "possibility of additional jail time" deserves serious consideration)
United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming despite identical advisory-range miscalculation given recidivism and sentence within statutory maximum)
United States v. Nino-Carreon, 910 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 2018) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing errors)
United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2013) (fourth-prong discretion is case-specific)
United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (remand where court cannot be confident error did not affect sentence)