Did the Fifth Circuit err—to the point of warranting summary reversal—when it denied Petitioner relief under the fourth prong of plain-error review based on its own conclusions about the seriousness of the prior burglary offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018), this Court held that, in the ordinary case, proof of a plain Sentencing Guidelines error that affects the defendant’s substantial rights is sufficient to meet the fourth prong of plain-error review. In its opinion this Court stated, inter alia, that “[a] substantive reasonableness determination... is an entirely separate inquiry from whether an error warrants correction under plain-error review” and that it is for the district court to decide “in the first instance ... whether, taking all sentencing factors into consideration, including the correct Guidelines range, a sentence is ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary.’ 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” 138 S. Ct. at 1910. Relatedly this Court indicated that, while a defendant’s criminal history may be “relevant to the District Court’s determination of an appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” (emphasis added), it “does not help explain whether the plain procedural error in [the] sentencing proceedings, which may have resulted in a longer sentence than is justified in light of that history, seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of” those proceedings. Id, at 1910 n.5. In Petitioner’s case, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the district court plainly erred in deciding that his prior Texas conviction for burglary qualified as one for generic “burglary” and therefore plainly erred in deciding that the conviction qualified as one for a “crime of violence” warranting a 16-level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)Gi) (2014). The court denied him relief under the fourth prong of plain-error review, however. In its view, the facts of the case did not establish that Petitioner will serve a prison sentence that is “more than ‘necessary’ to fulfill the purposes of incarceration” because Petitioner “actually committed a [prior] crime just as serious as, if not more serious than, generic burglary” and “other defendants, convicted of far less culpable conduct, properly receive such an enhancement under the Guidelines.” The court also stressed that the “50-month sentence that he received is comparable to sentences that would be imposed on those who committed a comparable prior offense.” The question presented is: Did the Fifth Circuit err—to the point of warranting summary reversal— when it denied Petitioner relief under the fourth prong of plain-error review based on its own conclusions about the seriousness of the prior burglary offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records? 1