## Facts

- Saul Molina-Martinez pleaded guilty in federal court to illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony.
- The Presentence Report treated multiple prior burglary convictions imposed on the same day as separate sentences despite no intervening arrests, overstating his criminal history points.
- The error placed him in Criminal History Category VI and produced an advisory Guidelines range of 77–96 months; the correct category was V with a range of 70–87 months.
- The district court imposed 77 months, the bottom of the incorrect range, and gave little explanation and no statement that it would have imposed the same sentence under a different range.
- On appeal, Molina-Martinez raised the Guidelines miscalculation for the first time; the court of appeals recognized the error but affirmed under plain-error review because the 77-month sentence also fell within the correct range and the defendant offered no “additional evidence” of prejudice.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), when a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect higher Guidelines range but receives a sentence that also falls within the correct range, must the defendant present “additional evidence” beyond the miscalculation to show the error affected substantial rights?
2. Whether, in the ordinary case, application of an incorrect higher Guidelines range itself is sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different sentencing outcome for purposes of plain-error review.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, in most cases, a defendant sentenced under an incorrect higher Guidelines range shows a reasonable probability of a different outcome, satisfying Rule 52(b)’s “substantial rights” requirement, even if the sentence also falls within the correct range.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule requiring “additional evidence” of prejudice when the imposed sentence overlaps both ranges.
- Applying that standard, the Court found a reasonable probability the district court might have imposed a lower sentence had it started from the correct range.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 52(b) plain-error review, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) clear or obvious error, (3) an effect on substantial rights (typically a reasonable probability of a different outcome), and (4) an effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
- Because the Sentencing Guidelines are the starting point and principal benchmark for federal sentencing, an error that sets an incorrect higher range is strong evidence of prejudice.
- Overlap between the incorrect and correct ranges does not, by itself, defeat a showing that the error affected substantial rights.
- Courts may not impose rigid, categorical requirements that raise the prejudice showing above “reasonable probability.”
- A defendant may fail to show prejudice in unusual cases where the record makes clear the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the correct Guidelines range.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a Guidelines miscalculation that yields a higher advisory range will ordinarily satisfy the prejudice component of plain-error review, even when the sentence imposed would also fall within the correct range, and it rejected a categorical “additional evidence” requirement for overlapping-range cases.


Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016)