Opinion ID: 69198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defendant-Appellant's Substantial Rights

Text: We also note that even if we were to conclude that this error had been clear and obvious prior to our declaring it so, we would still refrain from reversing the district court's sentencing of Jasso since the error, in its specific application to Jasso's case, did not substantially affect his substantial rights. In inquiring whether the defendant-appellant's substantial rights have been affected, the proper question here is whether the defendant can show a reasonable probability that, but for the district court's misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence. United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 364 (5th Cir.2005). Jasso cannot satisfy this burden. Including the incorrectly assigned two criminal history points for his 1995 prior conviction, the district court assigned him five criminal history points in total. With an offense level of twenty-one, the district court found that the applicable advisory guidelines range was forty-six to fifty-seven months in prison. The district court then sentenced him to forty-six months. If this Court were to subtract the two criminal history points that the district assigned in error, that would put Jasso at a criminal history category II, with a corresponding advisory range of forty-one to fifty-one months in prison. His current sentence of forty-six months, therefore, falls squarely in the middle of his corrected sentence. [10] Given this set of circumstances, we conclude that Jasso cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability, but for the district court's misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence. [11] Id. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.