Opinion ID: 612846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Error Affected Cordery's Substantial Rights

Text: To satisfy the third prong of plain error review, the appellant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 733. At sentencing, the district court named three factors supporting its decision to impose a sentence in the middle of the guidelines range: the goal of deterrence, the serious nature of the crime, and the court's understanding that a 56-month sentence was required for Cordery to be eligible for RDAP. There is no way for us to know exactly what sentence the court would have chosen in the absence of the third, impermissible factor. However, both parties agree that the court's emphasis on its calculation of RDAP eligibility suggests a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been lower without this consideration. Even if we assume that the other factors discussed by the court would have led to a guidelines sentence, this sentence could have been as low as 51 months' imprisonment. We thus conclude there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.