Opinion ID: 4368443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: “When reviewing Guidelines calculations, we ordinarily apply a de novo standard to legal conclusions and we accept the sentencing court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Pereira-Gomez, 903 F.3d 155, 161 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). But where a defendant raises an argument for the first time on appeal, we review his claim for plain error. Id. “We apply the plain error standard less stringently in the sentencing context, where the cost of correcting an unpreserved error is not as great as in the trial context.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The plain error standard is satisfied when: (1) “there [is] an error that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned”; (2) “the error [is] plain—that is to say, clear or obvious”; (3) “the error . . . affected the defendant’s substantial rights”; and (4) “the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904-05 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In the ordinary case . . . the failure to correct a plain Guidelines error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights will seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1911.