Opinion ID: 169511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: p rior c onvictions

Text: Finally, M r. Castorena asserts the district court erred in stating his 87month sentence was justified, in part, because he had three prior convictions unaccounted for in his criminal history score. Because M r. Castorena had only two such convictions, it is clear the district court erred and that such error was plain. W e thus turn to the third prong of plain error review, asking whether M r. Castorena has shown that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. “For an error to have affected substantial rights, ‘the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.’” United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 725). W e have held that an error is prejudicial when there is a “reasonable probability” that the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence had it not made the error. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no such probability here. At sentencing, the district court supported its imposition of a high-end Guidelines sentence with a litany of reasons that, according to the court, could have justified a “a term of imprisonment above . . . 87 months.” Rec. vol. II, at 9 (emphasis added). During -12- its discussion of these reasons, the court placed relatively little emphasis on the number of convictions unaccounted for in M r. Castorena’s criminal history score. It instead focused on the “egregiously serious” nature of M r. Castorena’s offense conduct and his admitted role in the C FO. Id. at 8. Even when discussing M r. Castorena’s prior convictions, the court did not dwell on their number but their nature. Indeed, the court stated that it was “remarkable” that M r. Castorena’s offense conduct was of the “same type” as the conduct underlying several of his prior convictions and that this demonstrated “a total disregard for the law s of this country in order to reap substantial financial gain through the violation of that law .” Id. at 9. The court further remarked that an 87-month sentence would protect the public because M r. Castorena’s recidivism indicated that he had “no inclination to comport [his] conduct with the law of this country.” Id. at 10. In light of these compelling statements, there is (at most) a miniscule likelihood that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it been aware that M r. Castorena had two, rather than three, convictions unaccounted for in his criminal history score. W e therefore find that M r. Castorena has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights so as to satisfy the third plain error prong. Even assuming this error somehow affected M r. Castorena’s substantial rights, we cannot say it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” under the fourth plain error prong. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732 (citation -13- and internal quotation marks omitted).