NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0059n.06 No. 10-3021 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DANI ELA. B ATI STA, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States District C o urt for the Southern Di str ic t of

Oh io

B e fo re : GU Y, B OG GS, and GI B B ON S, Ci rc uit

Judg e s. BO GGS, Circuit J udg e. Da niel A. B atista, a thirty -four -y ear - o ld Pa n a ma n ia n citizen, illega lly ree ntere d the United States afte r having been deporte d subsequent to his commission of a n ag g ravated fe lony
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) , (b)( 2). The dist rict court sentenc ed Batista t o a ter m of 78 months in pris o n . We vacate B atista’s sentenc e as pr ocedur ally unrea sonable a

nd rema nd for
re s en t en ci n g. I B a tis ta fi rs t e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s a s a c hil d o f a

Un ite d St a tes cit iz en in

19 87 , s ho rt ly befor e his eleve nth birthday . Havingpreviously attende d s chool on a mil itary base in Panama, Batista was alre ady

familiar with the Eng lish langua g e at the time he enter ed the country . Fr om 1987 until 1990, Batista moved multiple times with hi s family : from Geor g ia to North Carolina, the n back to Georg ia, then to California, a nd then bac k to Georg ia ag ain.No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 2 - Th ro ug ho ut h is t e e ns and e arl y tw e nti e s, B a tis ta

re pe a te dly

vio lated the law. Whil e in California, at the ag e of thirtee n, Batista w as arr ested on five separ ate occa sions a nd was c onvicted in juvenile court of f

our off enses, includingthree thefts. Althoug h Batista kept a cle an re cord f or a fe w y ear s after

moving ba ck to Georg ia, hi s criminal beha vior ultimately

returne d. I n 1994, at the ag e of se ventee n, Batista was cha rg ed with multiple counts of burg lary . He wa s ultim ately convicted and sente nced to seven y ear s in prison for these offe nses, but he wa s relea sed on par ole af ter thre e
mon ths . In 1 99 7, wh e n he wa s tw e nty -o ne , B a tis ta mov e d to Col umb us , O hio , a nd the Oh io A du lt Parole Authority

took ove r the duty of supervising Batista dur ing the rema inder of his term of par ole. Over the next three y ear s, Batista was arre sted five times, primarily for dr iving- related offe nses. For these c rimes, Batista was sentenced to a tot al of 240 day s in jail, althoug h that time was suspende d and B atista instead submitted to three da y s in a n alcohol prog ram a

nd one y ear

of probation, which conclude d in 2000

. I n 2 00 1, B ati st a began se e inghis c ur re nt w if e , A mand a

Di xon. He so on

mov e d in

wi th Di xon a nd he lpe d r a ise he r c hil d, wh o w a s le ss t ha n a y e ar o ld at th e tim e . L a te that y e ar, B a tis ta committed a sexual crime ag ainst a diffe rent wom an . I n October 2002, Batista was convicte d of Gr o s s S ex u al I m position for his conduct and wa s sentence d to 11 months i n prison. Batista was
re le a se d f ro m pr iso n in

July 20 03 , a nd , o n D e c e mbe r 2 9 o f t hat y e ar, he w as dep ort ed bac k to Panama. Dixon followed Ba tista to P anama , arr iving with their i nfant son whom B atista had not y et
se e n, and the tw o we re marr ie d in F e br ua ry 20 04
. Sho rt ly the re a ft e r, B a tis ta re tur ne d— ill e g a lly

—to the Columbus area

with his family
. See 8 U.S.C § 1326(a), (b) (2).No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 3 - Upon his return to the U nited States in early 2004, Batista paid t o have f alse identification do c ume nts pr od

uc e d in the nam e of Ca rlos Ac e ve do . U nd e r h is f a lse name , B a tis ta

wo rk e d a s a cable installer until 2008. During this four-y ear period, B atista kept a c lean r ecor d, worke d without incident six day s per we ek, spent time with his family , and, ac cordingto his wife, was a good f ather and no long er w ent out drinking with his friends, as he had done pr ior to his deportation. Despite his best efforts, Batista was unable to live as family -man Car los Aceve do fore ver. I n ear ly 2008, Batista’s wife a rg ued at wor

k with one of he r cow orker s, and the c oworke r wa s fired. The c oworke r, who kne w about B atista’s past, ca lled police and a lerted the m to his false identity and illega l status. The cowor ker a lso acc used B atista of thre atenin g t o harm he r, and a summons was issued to Batista for a misdemeanor char g e of Menac ing. That cha rg e wa s ultim ately

dismiss ed. On May 29 , 2 00 8, I mmi g ratio n a

nd Cus tom s Enf

or c e me nt (“ I CE” ) ag e nts loc a te d Batis ta a t his h ome and conf ronted him about his true identity . Wh en t he ag ents notified B atista that he wa s under
arr est, he pushed the m away and fled the s cene . The following day , an arrest warra nt was issued for Batista, w ho had fle d to Georg ia, wher e he r esided with a f riend until J anuar

y 2009. At that time, he re turned to Ohio to be with his family , and, to avoid dete ction, he paid f or newfalse ide ntification documents, this time in the name of Adlai Steve F err ell. Fe rre ll was short-lived. On F ebrua ry 20, 2009, an Ohio State Highwa y Patrol trooper stoppe d a vehic le for a traff ic violation and identified Batista as a passe ng er. The trooper a rre sted Batista on the outstanding war rant a nd turned ove r the false ide ntification documents to I CE. On Marc h 24, 2009, Batista w as indicted on three counts: (1) be ing in the U nited States after having been de ported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)( 2) and ( b)(2) ; (2) using the identificationNo. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

Although the g overnme nt raised the issue at sentencing , the d istrict court made no 1 deter mination a s t o wh ether

Batista’s Gross Sexual I mpositi on char g e could a lso be consider ed a crime of violence. With ou t th e 16 -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt, B a tis ta ’s tot a l of fe ns e le ve l w ou ld h a ve be e n 5 . With 2 that offe nse leve l and t he cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of VI used in the re port, Batista’s Guidelines - 4 - of anothe r per son, Carlos Ace vedo, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)( 1); and (3) using the identification of another person, Adlai Steve F err ell, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)
. I n exchang e for the di smissal of C ounts 2 and 3, Batista pleade d g uilty on Aug ust 12, 2009, to Count 1, being in the United States afte r havingbeen de ported. On Dec ember

7, 2009, th e fede ral probation officer submitt ed a Pre sentenc e Investig ation Report (“ PSR ”). The P S R d et er m ined that B atista had 12 c riminal history points for his prior convictions, and that total wa s increa s ed b y two points pursuant to USS G §4A1.1(e ) bec ause the
un de rl y ingof

fe ns e wa s c omm itt e d le ss t ha n tw o y e ars a ft e r B a tis ta ’s re le a se fr om pr iso n f or Gr os s Se xu al I mp os ition . T his a dju stm e nt p us he d B a tis ta int o c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y VI . T he ba se offe nse leve l of Batista’s violatio n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 1326(a) is 8, but bec ause B atista had be en pr e vio us ly

de po rt e d a ft e r h a vin g c omm itt e d a c ri me of vio le nc e —th e burg lary of fe ns e that B a tis ta
c omm itt e d w he n h e wa s se ve nte e n y e ars old —th e P S R add e d 1 6 le ve ls p ur su ant t o U SSG §2 L 1. 2( b) (1 )( A) (i i)
. Th e PSR d e du c te d thre e le ve ls b e c a us e B a tis ta

a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is 1 crime and was timely

in notify ing the g overnme nt of his intention to enter a plea . Ba sed on B atista’s adjusted off

ense le vel of 21 a

nd criminal histo ry ca t ego ry of VI , the Guidelines re commended a sentenc e of 77 to 96 months in prison, and the PSRrec ommended a se ntence of 85 months, in the middle of the Guidelines r ang e. 2No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

rang e would have been 9–15 months in prison. USSG §5A. A district court is require d to submit to the Unit ed S tates S entenc ing Comm ission a written 3 statement of r easons for eve ry criminal sentenc e that it imposes. 28 U.S.C. § 994(w)(1). I n order to safe g ua

rd c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a tio n, the state me nt o f r e a so ns fo rm is n ot a va ila ble fo r p ub lic disclosure, but it is made ava ilable to defe nse counse l, gov er n ment attorney s, and var ious - 5 - Batista was sente nced on January 6, 2010. At the sentenc ing he aringand in a wr itten sentenc ing me morandum filed the pr evious day , Batista arg ued that hi s cr i m i n al hi story was overstate d by

two cate g ories bec ause ma ny of his c onvictions took place duringhis y outh. The cour t ag ree d in part, “f

ind[ ing] that [Batista’s] criminal history cate g ory is slightly

over s t at ed , ” and reduc ed B atista’s cr iminal hist ory cate g ory from VI to V. The re duced c riminal h i s t o ry cate g ory established an a djusted Guidelines ra ng e of 70 to 87 months. Batista also argued that the 16- level incre ase in his offe nse leve l based on a cr i m e he committed in 1994 overstate d the seriousne ss of the of fe ns e , b ut t

he c ourt state d th a t it

a de qu a te ly

a dju ste d f

or B a tis ta ’s juv e nil e status a t th e tim e of the burg lary

convictions by reduc ing his criminal hi story cate g ory . Batista further a rg ued that he
wo uld lik e ly su ff e r a n a dd iti on a l pe ri od

of inc arc e ratio n w hil e wa iting to be de po rt e d a ft e r t his sentenc e, and the district c ourt stated that it would “sentenc e at the l ow end of the guideline range t o ac co u n tfo r t h i s . ” ( E mp h as i s s u p p l i ed ). Af

t e r t h e g o v ern m en t ’s co l l o qu y , t h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge considere d Batista’s remainingarguments in favor of a lower sentenc e and c oncluded that “ [a]
se nte nc e of

78 mon ths at the—toward the l ower end of the guideline range is appropriate base d on defe ndant’s ar g uments in his sentencing memorandum.” (Emphasis supplied). Although the district c ourt’s written judgme nt similarly ref lected that Batista w as sentenc ed to 78 months i n prison, in the seale d statement of r easons, the district j u d ge wr o t e that “[t]he 3No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

g overnme nt ag encie s and off ices. Un ite d S

tat es v . E sp inoza , 514 F.3d 209, 213 n. 5 (2d Cir. 2008). - 6 - sentenc e of 70 mon t h s , at t h e l ow end of the new guideline ra

ng e[,] is appropriate base d on the D e f e n d an t ’ s ar g u m e n t s i n h i s s e n t e n c i n g m e m o r an d u m . ” ( E mp h a s i s s u

p p l i e d )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, betwee n the cour

t ’s m ultiple refe renc es to a ter m “at” or “towar d” the bottom of the Guide lines rang e, which w as 70–87 months, the orally -pronounc ed ter m of 78 months, and the 70-month term in the seale d statement of rea sons, the sentenc ing rec ord is c onfusing , both as to what sentenc e the judge intended to g ive and, sig nificantly , what Guidelines r ang e the judg e re lied upon. Batista filed this ti mely ap p ea l , arguing that his sentence is both proc edura lly and substantively

unrea sonable. This cour t has jurisdiction to review the district c ourt’s sentenc e. II A This court re views a district c ourt’s se n t en ce fo r an a buse of discr etion. United States v. Ba ra ho na -M

on te ne gr o , 5 65 F .3 d 9 80 , 9 83 (6 th Cir
. 20 09 ). Ho we ve r, pla in- e rr or re vie w a pp lie s to claims that wer e not ra ised befor e the district judg e. United St ates v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 385- 86 (6th Cir. 2008) (e n banc)
. To establish plain err or, the defe ndant must show “(1) e rror (2) that wa s
o b v i o u s o r

c l e ar ( 3 ) t h a t a f

f e c t e d [ h i s ] s u

b s t an t i a l r i g h t s an d ( 4 ) t h a t a f f e c t e d t h e f

a i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y, or public re putation of the judici al p roce eding s.” Id . at 386 (interna l punctuation and citation omi tte d) . T o me e t th is s tand ard , n ot o nly mus t th e e rr or

be c le ar, bu t th e re mus t be a “ re a so na ble probability ” that it af

fe ct ed t h e o utcome of the proce eding
. United States v. Marc us , 1 30 S. Ct
. 2159, 2164 (2010).No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 7 - When review ing a

sentenc e for

an abuse of discretion, this court first c onsiders whe ther the sentenc e is proce durally

rea sonable. Ba ra ho na -M on te ne gr o , 565 F.3d at 983. Procedura l review involves a three -fa ctor a

naly sis: (1) whether

the cour t properly calc ulated the Guidelines ra ng e; (2) whether the cour t considere d the § 3553(a) fac tors and the parties’ arguments; and (3) whether the court adequate ly explained why it impos ed the c hosen sentenc e. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). I f the c ourt deter

min es t h at the sentenc e is proce durally rea sonable, it next reviews the sentenc e for

substantive rea sonablene ss. Ba ra ho na -M on te ne gr o , 5 6 5 F.3d at 983. Subst antive
re v ie w r e qu ir e s th a t th e c o u rt “ ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e to ta li ty o f th e c ir c u ms ta n c e s , in c luding the extent of any

varia nce f rom the Guidelines r ang e.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Due de fer ence must be g iven to the sentenc ing judg e’s de cision, and the fa ct that this court “mig ht
r e a s o n a b ly h a v e c o n c lu d e d

th a t a d if f e r e n t s e n te n c e w a s a

p p r o p r iate is in s u f

f ic ie n t t o ju s tify
reve rsal.” Ib id . F ur

the r, wi thi n- Gu ide lin e s sent ences re c e ive a pr e su mpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss. United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 464 ( 6th Cir. 2010). B B a t i s t a ’ s s o l e p r o c e d

u r a l ar g u m e n t i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i d n o t u s e t h e c o r r e c t l ycalc ulated Guidelines r ang e. B atista did not raise this argument at t he sentencing hear ing and, as he
c on c e de s, thi s cou

rt mus t th e re fo re a

pp ly pla in- e rr or

re vie w. Ap pe lla

nt’ s B r. a t 8; see U

nited States

v . S tor y , 5 03 F .3 d 4 36 , 4 38 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) (a pp lyingpla in- e rr or

re vie w w he re de fe nd ant fa ile d to object to sentenc ing judg e’s misstatement of the Guidelines ra ng e).No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 8 - Batista’s argument is an unusual one. He does not alleg e that the district judg e miscalc ulated the Guid el ines rang e. Cf. Ba ra ho na -M on te ne gr o , 565 F.3d at 981. Nor does he alleg e that the dis t rict judg e cor

rec tly calc ulated but misstated the Guidelines ra ng e. Cf. Sto ry , 503 F.3d at 438. Rather, B atista alleg es that, althoug h the district judge corr ectly calc ulated and stated the Guidelines
ra n ge, t h e j udg e actually used the incorr ect Guide lines rang e. Appe llant’s Br . at 10–11. For that
rea son, the ca s es t h at B atista cites for support are not controlling be cause they involve situations wher e the district judg e stated a n incorre ct Guidelines ra

ng e. In United States v. Lee , for e x ample, the district court stated that the Guidelines ra ng e wa s 15–21 months, but i t was ac tually 12–18 months. 288 F. App’ x 264, 272 (6th Cir. 2008). And in United States v. Pre sley , the district court used an inc orre ct base offe nse leve l to calculate the Guidelines ra ng e, which r esulted in an incor rec t rang e. 349 F . App’x 22, 31 (6th Ci r. 2009). Those case s do not speak to this situation, where the district court stated the c orre ct Guidelines ra ng e. Although c laims such as B atista’s that depe nd entirely on what went on in the sentencing j u d ge’ s h ea d

ar e l i k el y t o s u ff er fr o m a de ar t h o f ev i d en ce , i n t h i s ca s e, Ba t i s t a’ s cl ai m i s co mp el l i n g. He re , th e or ig ina l G uid e lin e s r ang e wa s 7 7– 96 mon ths and the a dju ste d r ang e wa s 7 0– 87 mon ths
. Al t h o u gh t h e judge c orre ctly stated the a djusted Guidelines ra ng e, he imposed a

sentenc e of 78
mon ths , w hic h h e re fe rr e d to a s “ a t th e —to wa rd the low e r e nd ” of

the Gu ide lin e s r ang e . Be c a us e the mid po int in t he a dju ste d G uid e lin e s r ang e is 7 8. 5 mo nth s, a se nte nc e of

78 mon ths —a s c los e to the mid dle of the ra

ng e a s one c an g e t with ou t splittin g y e ars —c ann ot re a so na bly be c on sid e re d “ a t”
or eve n “towar d” the lowe r end of the ra ng e. On the othe r hand, 78 months is i narguably “towar d t h e l o we r e n d ” o f t h e u n ad j u s t edra n ge o f 7 7

– 9 6 m o n t h s , wh i ch Ba t i s t a a r g u e s t h a tt h e j u d geNo. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 9 - improperly

relied on w hen dete rmi n i n g h i s sentenc e. This ar g ument is further suppor ted by the dis tr ic t ju dg e ’s c omm e nts e arl ie r i n the se nte nc ing he ari ng . Cle arl y ind ic a tin g that he inte nd e d to sentenc e B atista at the bottom—not the middle—of the Guidelines rang e, the judge stated that “the Court w i l l t ak e i n t o co n s i d er at i o nt h e a d d i t i o n al t er m o f i n ca rc er at i o nwh i l e a wa i t i n g d ep o rt ati on and sentenc e a t

the low end of the guideline ra ng e to ac count for this.” ( Emphasis supplied). The transcr ipt of the sentenc ing he aringman i fe s ts that, although the district judge stated the c orre ct Guidelines ra

ng e, he e rrone ously

relied upon a

n incorre ct one. The judg e’s c omments in the sealed state ment of re asons conf irms this conclusio n . I n the statement of r easons, th e j u d g e re fer red to a sentenc e of 70 months, “at the low end” of the Guidelines ra

ng e. Althoug h, as t h e go v er n m ent not es in its brief, the judg e’s or al sentenc e of 78 months controls over the 70 months ref ere nce d i n t h e s t atement of rea sons, the question is not whether Batista was ac tually

sentenc ed to 70 months in prison, but whether the district judge relied upon an incorre ct Guidelines rang e when sentenc ing him to 78 months in prison. Cf
. United States v. Pe nson , 5 26 F .3 d 33 1, 33 4 (6 th Cir
. 20 08 ) ( ho ldi ngthat an unambi g uo us or a l se nte nc e c on tr ols in the event of

an inconsistent w ritten sentenc e). A70-month sentence cannot be at or towa rds the l o w e n d o f t h e i n c o r

r e c t 7 7

– 9 6 r a n g e , b u t o b v i o u s l y is at the low end of the cor rec t 70–87 rang e. Th e state me nt of re a so ns thu s c on fi rm s the vie w t hat th e dis tr ic t ju dg e de sir e d to se nte nc e B a tis ta at the bottom of the Guidelines r ang e, and by sentenc ing him to 78 months in prison, relied upon the incorre ct ra

ng e.No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

We n ote that, i n unp ub lis he d d isp os iti on s, ot her cir c uit s h a ve re je c te d s imi lar c la ims 4 premised on c onflicting statements of re asons. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . I laraz a , 293 F. App’ x 320, 321–22 (5th Cir. 2008) (noting that the ora l sentence controls a n d t here fore reje cting defe ndant’s argu me n t, p r e mi s e d u

p o n a c o n f

li c ti n g s tate me n t o f r e a s o n s , th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r r e d by not se nte nc ingthe de fe nd ant ac c or din g to i ts i nte nti on ); Un ite d S tat es v . Ca rd

we ll , 220 F. App’ x 213, 213–14 (4th Cir. 2007) (re jecting argument that the def end an t was er

roneously g iven too high a sentenc e bec ause the oral s e nte n c e c o ntr ols over conf licting r easoningg iven in statement of r easons)
. Th e c la ims in t

he se c a se s are dis tin g uis ha ble , h ow e ve r. Un lik e B a tis ta ’s sit uatio n, the c la ims in these c ases r ely

entirely on what the sentenc ing judg e stated in the state ment of re asons and have no support in the sentenc ing tr anscr ipt. More signific antly , the claims ar e base d on the sentenc e that the judg e intended to g ive—the substantive re s u l t

— as o p p o s edt o the G u i d el i n es ra n ge t h at t h e j u d ge relied on—the procedural path to that result. Acc ording ly , these c ases a re ina pposite and, in any c a se , d o n ot b ind

thi s c ourt
. - 10 - The gov e r

n me n t c it e s n o a

u th o r it y s u g g e s ti n g th a t B a ti s ta

c an n o t r e ly

u p o nth e w r itten statement of r easons to support his claim that the judg e re lied upon an improper Guidelines ra

ng e, 4

no r i s th e re any prac tic a l r e a so n to dis a llo w c on sid e ra tio n o f t he state me nt o f r e a so ns in t his situation. The rea son that oral sentences control in the eve nt of a c onflicting written sentenc e is that

“ ‘[a ] d e fe nd ant is pr e se nt on ly wh e n be ing se nte nc e d fr om t he be nc h[,]’ ” and

“ ‘[s ]en te nc ingsh ou ld be conduc ted with the judge and def endant f acingone anothe r and not in sec ret.’” Ib id . (quoting United States v. Villano , 816 F.2d 1448, 1452 ( 10th Cir. 1987)). Acc ord ingly , this court has disallowed the use of a stateme nt of rea sons to save a se ntence from an ina dequate explanation given at the ora l sentencinghear ing. Ba ra ho na -M on te ne gr o , 565 F.3d at 986. This holding is consistent with the pri m ar y

purpose of

proce dural re view, which is to assure that the def endant be g iven an adequate ex planation for his sentence as we ll as a cha nce to r espond. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 871–73 ( 6th Cir. 2004).No. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 11 - Her e, h o w e v e r , th e ju d g e ’ s s tate me n ts a t th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g w e r e c o n tr a d ic to r y and sug g ested that B atista’s sen tence was proc edura lly infirm. To disallow considera tion of the statement of r easons to c on fir m that pr oc e dura l inf

ir mity wo uld be to t

ur n th e re a so nin g fo r t

he ru le on its head. R at h er than ensuring that the judg e g ives an a dequate explanation at the sentenc ing hear ing, r efusingto consid er t h e stateme nt of rea sons in this case would serve only to protect a

n ina de qu ateexplanation. Notably , this is not a case wher e the oral he aringunveiled no irre g ularities
and the de fe nd ant mounts a pr oc e dura l atta c k pre mis e d only up on a c on fl ic tin g state me nt o f r e a so ns . Rather, the tr anscr ipt of Batista’s oral sente ncin g hear ing ma nifests a stronglikelihood that the
se nte nc ingjud g e c omm itt e d a pr oc e dura l e rr or and B a tis ta re lie s o n th e state me nt o f r e a so ns on ly to confirm that er

ror. Unde r these c ircumstance s, we hold that it is ap p ro priate to c onsider the statement of rea sons, w hich is consistent with the judge ’s comments at the se ntencinghear ing a nd indicates that he intended to se ntence Batista at the bottom of the Guidelines ra ng e. The statement strong ly sug g ests that the j udg e, by sentenc ing Batista to a term of 78 months in prison, pla inl yrelied on the incorr ect Guide lines rang e. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . D am ra , 621 F.3d 474, 496 (6th Cir. 2010) (n oti ngthat th e pla in- e rr or te st r e qu ir es tha t th e e rr or “ be c le ar o r o bv iou s, rathe r t ha n s ub je c t to
re as o n ab l e d i s p u t e” ) ( qu o t i n g Puck ett v. United States , 129 S. Ct . 1423, 1429 (2009))
. I t is well-established in this circ uit that a district c ourt’s failure to use a prope rly -ca lculated Guidelines rang e constitutes plain error
. United States v. Bak er , 559 F.3d 443, 454 ( 6th Cir. 2009); Presley , 3 49 F . App ’x a t 31 ; Sto ry , 503 F.3d at 440–41. Although, unlike the c ited case s, the district
c ourt stated

the cor rec t Guidelines rang e in this case, t h at d i s t inction has no bea ring on the plainerr or ana ly sis, which focuse s on whether a cle ar e rror i n creased the leng th of the def endant’ sNo. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

S e e U n i t e d S t a te s v . R uiz , 2010 WL 4721146, at *1 (6th Cir. Novembe r 15, 2010) ( 18 5 months for a 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation where the alien ha d illega lly enter ed the country sevente en times); United States v. Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 630–31 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (36 months for a 8 U .S. C. § 13 26 vio la tio n w he re a lie n h a d il legal ly e nte re d th e c ountr

y fo ur tim e s) ; United States v. Calderon , 317 F. App’ x 435, 435–36 (6th Cir. 2007) (38 months—with the same 16-le vel e nh anc e me nt a

pp lie d to B a tis ta

—f or a 8 U. S.C. § 13 26 vio la tio n wh e re the a lie n ha d “ re tur ne d to the United States illeg ally sever al times, ha[d] been c onvicted of a number of c rimes, including robber y /burg lary , conce aled we apon, thef t, petty t h ef

t , ali en smug g ling, a

nd ha[d] been de ported sever al times”). Wit hout that e nhance ment, Batista’s Guidelines rang e would be 6 to 12 months in prison, 6 even a ccountingfor his cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of V. - 12 - sentenc e. Un i t ed States v. M ilan , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d

4 4 5 , 4 5 1

– 5 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. Re g ar d le s s o f w h a t t he dis tr ic t c ourt

sa id, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s us e of the inc or re c t r ang e a lmo st c e rt a inl y inc re a se d th e le ng th of B at i s t a’ s s entence, which ne g atively impacts both his substantial rights and the integ rity of the judicial proce eding
. Se e Sto ry , 503 F.3d at 440. As a re sult, Batista has shown pla in error
. C Be cause we hold that B atista’s sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable a

nd re m an d for
rese ntencing , we ne ed not dec ide the question of whe ther it is also substantively unrea sonable. United States v. Novales , 5 8 9 F. 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 -1 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Ga ll , 5 5 2 U.S. at 51). We note, howeve r, that B atista’s sentenc e is long er tha n is ty pical for 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violations and 5 that, at re sentenc ing, the district court may revie w all sentenc ing issues de novo. United States v. Gibbs , 6 26 F .3 d 3 44 , 3 50 –5 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) . In p art icular, the dis tr ic t c ourt re ta ins the a

uth or ity to c on sid e r w he the r the Gu ide lin e s’ sta rk 16 -l e ve l enh anc e me nt —o n ac c ount of a se pa ra te c ri me 6 Batista committ ed seve nteen y ear s ag o as a teena g er—a dequate ly ref lects t he § 3553(a ) fa ctors asNo. 10-3021

Un ite d S tat es v . B ati

sta

- 13 - they apply to thi s crime a nd, if not, to vary

acc ording ly
. Un ite d Sta te s v . B ris se tt , 375 F. App’ x 473, 47 8 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) ; United States v. He rrera-Zuniga , 571 F.3d 568, 584–85 ( 6th Cir. 2009). III For the fore g oing r easons, we VACATE B atist a’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for rese ntencingconsistent with this opi nion.