Opinion ID: 41555
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Aviles-Jaimes raised his Booker claim for the first time in his petition for certiorari. Therefore, we will not review his Booker claim absent “extraordinary circumstances.”3 The extraordinary circumstances standard is more demanding than the plain error standard that we employ when a defendant has raised his Booker claim for the first time on appeal.4 Therefore, if a defendant cannot satisfy plain error review, he certainly cannot satisfy extraordinary circumstances review.5 As Aviles-Jaimes’s claim does not survive plain error review, we need not address the question of extraordinary circumstances. Under plain error review, we will not remand for resentencing unless (1) there is error, (2) that error is plain, and (3) it affects substantial rights.6 If the circumstances meet all three criteria, we may exercise our discretion to notice the error, but only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”7 Since Booker, sentencing under mandatory Guidelines (1) constitutes error, and (2) that error is plain.8 Whether the error affects substantial rights is 3 United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002). 7 Id. 8 United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005). 3 a more complex inquiry in which the defendant bears the burden of proof. He carries his burden if he can “demonstrate a probability ‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’”9 The defendant demonstrates such a probability when he identifies from the record an indication that the sentencing judge would have reached a significantly different result under an advisory Guidelines scheme.10