Opinion ID: 4581880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the district court plainly erred at

Text: SENTENCING BY MISSTATING BRITO’S CRIMINAL HISTORY Because Brito forfeited his objection to the court’s account of his criminal history, we review for plain error. Brito must prove that there was an error; that the error was plain; that it 8 prejudiced his substantial rights; and that not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 733– 37. That burden is heavy, but Brito carries it. A. The District Court erred by claiming that Brito had been removed thrice The District Court suggested that Brito had been removed from the United States three times. He had not. He was removed only twice: once in 2004 and once in 2013. The District Court also suggested that this third removal was for distinct criminal conduct. That was also mistaken. While the charges were separate, they stemmed from a single arrest. The court erred in suggesting otherwise. It rightly noted that Brito had pleaded guilty in federal court to “two separate drug-related offenses for which he was incarcerated” for several years. App. 53. And it rightly noted that this sentence ended with his removal. Id. But then it made a mistake. The District Court said the New Jersey sentence was “for yet another drug-related offense.” Id. (emphasis added). It was not “yet another”—not really. As noted above, it may have been another charge against Brito, but it stemmed from the same conduct as his federal conviction. Compounding its error, the District Court then said that, following this New Jersey sentence, “[a]gain, the Defendant was deported.” Id. (emphasis added). That implies a third removal. But it was not a third removal—it was the same removal the court had noted before. 9 The Government asks us to read the District Court’s statement differently. It claims that the final sentence—“Again, the Defendant was deported”—merely reinforced the removal already mentioned. But that reading ignores context, as well as the repetitive sentence structure the District Court chose. The court did an admirably thorough job at sentencing, but this statement was error. B. That error was plain