Opinion ID: 612846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Error Seriously Affects the Fairness, Integrity, or Public Reputation of Judicial Proceedings

Text: Finally, even where the appellant has prevailed on the first three prongs of this analysis, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 736. [This] standard is formidable, as we will only exercise our discretion when an error is particularly egregious and the failure to remand for correction would produce a miscarriage of justice. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d at 820 (quotations omitted). Not every error resulting in an increased sentence will meet this standard. See Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 736 (refusing to collapse the third and fourth prongs for sentencing error). [In] considering whether to correct unobjected-to sentencing errors ... the key concern has been whether correct application of the sentencing laws would likely significantly reduce the length of the sentence. United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151, 1161 (10th Cir.2003) (finding this prong unsatisfied where the error resulted in the appellant receiving a lower sentence). The government contends that, at most, the district court's error resulted in an additional five months' imprisonment. It argues this effect is not sufficiently significant to work a miscarriage of justice. We disagree. An additional five months' imprisonment is significant in the context of a 51-month sentence  it is nearly a ten percent increase. See Meacham, 567 F.3d at 1190-91 (finding a significant effect where the error resulted in a 12-month disparity between top of the guideline range, 108 months, and the actual sentence). More importantly, on this record there is every reason to believe the district court may find a sentence below 51 months is reasonable if Cordery is not eligible for the drug treatment program, making the potential gap even larger. We therefore exercise our discretion to remand this case for resentencing, despite Cordery's failure to object to the error below.