Whether the trial court's consideration of non-charged offenses with significantly higher sentencing guidelines constitutes plain error affecting the defendant's substantial rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Rosales-Mireles, this Court struck down the court of appeals’ heightened “shock the conscience” standard for a Rule 52(b) plain error review, and held that such a review is available in ordinary circumstances where the record reflects that the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings have been affected. Does the trial court’s express consideration of non-charged offenses with significantly higher sentencing guidelines that those for which a defendant pled guilty constitute plain error that affects that defendant’s substantial rights? 2. Do post-appeal assertions that a waiver of appeal was not fully informed and that the waiver process in the trial court was improperly rushed constitute plain error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights? ii