United States v. Santos Dias, 682 F. App'x 292

Santos Dias previously pleaded guilty (2014) to illegal reentry, received time served and 1 year supervised release.
While on supervised release, Dias reentered the U.S. and was indicted in 2015; the Government moved to revoke his prior supervised release.
Dias pleaded guilty to the new illegal-reentry charge and to the supervised-release violation.
Guideline ranges: illegal reentry 15–21 months; supervised-release revocation 6–12 months. Dias sought below-range sentences or partial concurrency; Government sought consecutive high-end sentences.
At sentencing the prosecutor (and the district court) mistakenly stated Fifth Circuit precedent required consecutive sentences; court imposed 16 months for new offense and 8 months consecutive for revocation (total 24 months).
Dias appealed; he did not object below, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by treating consecutive sentences as mandatory	Dias argued the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because discretion existed to run them concurrently	Government argued Fifth Circuit precedent required consecutive sentences (prosecutor stated so at sentencing)	Error was plain: post-2003 Guidelines give district courts discretion; consecutive requirement is abrogated
Whether plain error standard applies	Dias conceded he did not object, so plain error review applies	Government relied on lack of objection to limit review	Court applied plain error review because issue was not preserved
Whether the plain error affected substantial rights	Dias argued the misstatement could have increased his sentence and undermined outcome confidence	Government implied no prejudice because sentence fell within ranges	Court found Dias met burden: sentencing misconception could have affected outcome (potential 8-month difference)
Whether resentencing is warranted under discretion for correcting plain error	Dias sought remand for resentencing	Government opposed or did not successfully rebut prejudice and fairness concerns	Court exercised discretion to vacate and remand for resentencing to preserve fairness and integrity

United States v. Gonzales, 642 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review framework when issue not preserved)
United States v. Castillo-Estevez, 597 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error test and correction standard)
United States v. Alexander, 100 F.3d 24 (5th Cir. 1996) (prior Fifth Circuit decision interpreting guideline note pre-2003)
United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2004) (post-2003 Guidelines give district courts discretion to run sentences concurrently or consecutively)
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for showing substantial-rights prejudice under plain-error review)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (benchmarks for when an incorrect Guidelines range affects substantial rights)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant bears burden to show plain-error prejudice)