Does the government meet its burden to prove that a sentencing error is harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) if it shows that it is more probable than not that the district court would have imposed the same sentence but for the error (as the Ninth Circuit has held), or is something more required (as the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits have suggested)?

Question Presented In recent years, the Court has granted certiorari to clarify how the plain-error standard of review applies to unpreserved claims of sentencing error. See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016). This case provides the Court with the opportunity to resolve a circuit conflict and thereby clarify how the harmless-error standard of review applies when such a claim has been preserved. Specifically, it presents this question: Does the government meet its burden to prove that a sentencing error is harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) if it shows that it is more probable than not that the district court would have imposed the same sentence but for the error (as the Ninth Circuit has held), or is something more required (as the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits have suggested)? ii