This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioner contends that an obvious sentencing‑guidelines error caused a longer prison term, citing the error as clear, obvious, and having affected the party’s rights.
According to Kristin L. Davidson, the United States argues that the Fifth Circuit’s “shocks‑the‑conscience” standard is inappropriate and that courts should correct guideline errors that affect fairness, integrity, and the public reputation of the judiciary.
Background and question before the Court
The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:18 a.m.
According to Justice Ginsburg, a central question presented was whether correction under the plain‑error doctrine should be exercised routinely for obvious sentencing‑guidelines errors.
According to Justice Ginsburg, another issue raised was whether failure to notice a glaring guidelines error could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Florencio Rosales‑Mireles)
According to Mr. Ellis, the petitioner asserts that the sentencing‑guidelines error was clear, obvious, and directly resulted in a longer incarceration period.
According to Mr. Ellis, he emphasizes that the error affected his rights and caused at least one additional day of imprisonment.
Respondent (United States)
According to Kristin L. Davidson, the government concedes that the Fifth Circuit’s “shocks‑the‑conscience” standard is the wrong approach for plain‑error review of guideline errors.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether correction under the plain‑error doctrine should be exercised routinely for obvious guideline errors.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg also questioned whether failure to notice a glaring guidelines error could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch made a remark, “That we've made ourselves?” during the argument.
Justice Breyer asked whether a particular section had been declared unconstitutional in Booker.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor inquired whether the discussion of reasonableness was about substantive reasonableness, as applied by the Fifth Circuit.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 31d4ce83717ac82931fc-r1-411f17f4c9aca5f8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.