When should a case be remanded for resentencing under the plain-error standard of review if the district court failed to announce its calculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range?

Question Presented The Sentencing Guidelines “anchor” a district court’s discretion by setting the “starting point and initial benchmark.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 198-99 (2016) (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Miscalculation of the advisory Guidelines range is so significant that it almost always amounts to plain error. See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1903, 1911 (2018); Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 198, 204. At the petitioner’s sentencing, the district court never announced the advisory range before it imposed a sentence three times the low end of the applicable range, almost twice the high end of that range, and higher than the sentences recommended by the probation office and both parties. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless found no plain error. This case therefore presents an excellent vehicle to consider this question: When should a case be remanded for resentencing under the plain-error standard of review if the district court failed to announce its calculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range? ii