Opinion ID: 4100886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First and Second Prongs

Text: The first and second prongs of the plain error test direct us to determine (1) whether the district court erred and (2) whether that error was “clear or obvious.” Id. Patino-Almendariz argues, and the Government acknowledges, that he should only have been assigned 2 points for his April 2014 conviction because his sentence did not exceed 13 months’ imprisonment. As discussed 3 Case: 15-41146 Document: 00513767953 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 No. 15-41146 above, the Guidelines provide that 3 criminal history points should be added “for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a) (emphasis added). Because Patino-Almendariz’s prior sentence was for one year and one month exactly, he should not have been assigned 3 points under § 4A1.1(a); rather, he should have been apportioned only 2 points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(b). This correction would have given Patino-Almendariz 12 total criminal history points, instead of 13, and would have placed him in criminal history category V. U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A. As a result, the correct Guidelines range would have been 21 to 27 months, rather than 24 to 30 months. Id. The district court certainly erred by improperly calculating Patino-Almendariz’s Guidelines range. “As our conclusion is reached by a straightforward application of the guidelines,” the district court’s error was clear and obvious. United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, we hold that the first two prongs of the plain error analysis are satisfied.