Opinion ID: 4111304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant’s Substantial Rights

Text: The third prong of the plain error analysis—harm to the defendant’s substantial rights—is also satisfied. “Ordinarily, in order to establish that an error ‘affects substantial rights’ . . . , a defendant must establish that the error was ‘prejudicial,’ i.e.[,] that it ‘affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.’” Reyna, 358 F.3d at 350. In cases involving the right to allocution, we presume that the defendant’s substantial rights were affected if “the record reveals that the district court did not sentence at the bottom of the guideline range or if the court rejected arguments by the defendant that would have resulted in a lower sentence.” Id. at 353. Because Palacios was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment, a mid-range sentence in the advisory guidelines range of 135 to 168 months of imprisonment, we hold that the error affected his substantial rights. See Magwood, 445 F.3d at 829; Reyna, 358 F.3d at 353.