When this Court held in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) that a failure to correctly calculate the guideline range, which anchors all sentencing and serves as the benchmark by which all variances are to be measured, is a significant procedural error that typically impacts a defendant's substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings, did this Court intend to carve out an exception for judges that use an inflated Guideline anchor due to a failure to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) so long as the judge understood that he/she could not impose a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum?

QUESTION PRESENTED When this Court held in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) that a failure to correctly calculate the guideline range, which anchors all sentencing and serves as the benchmark by which all variances are to be measured, is a significant procedural error that typically impacts a defendant’s substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings, did this Court intend to carve out an exception for judges that use an inflated Guideline anchor due to a failure to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a) so long as the judge understood that he/she could not impose a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum? i