In Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. ---, No. 16-9493 (2018), the Court considered "whether a miscalculation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range, that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights, calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Rule 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence."
It held, "such an error will in the ordinary case, as here, seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and thus will warrant relief." In other words, Guidelines calculation error will almost always satisfy Olano's fourth prong -- "seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings."
This is an important decision because it helps makes clear the fourth prong should not be an undue obstacle to plain error relief: "By focusing instead on principles of fairness, integrity, and public reputation, the Court recognized a broader category of errors that warrant correction on plain-error review."
In Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. ---, No. 17-5639 (2018), the Court addressed the requirement that the district court provide an adequate explanation for its sentence.
The case arose out of a resentencing. It does not really break new ground. But there is a helpful reminder that can be cited in sentencing appeals:
[O]f particular relevance here, the judge "shall state in open court the reasons for [the] imposition of the particular sentence.” §3553(c). If the sentence is outside the Guidelines range (whether because of a “departure” or a “variance”), the judge must state “the specific reason for the imposition of a . . . different” sentence. §3553(c)(2). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, and the Guidelines range exceeds 24 months, the judge must also state “the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range.” §3553(c)(1).
