Rosales-Mireles v. United States (16-9493)

argument 16-9493

Rosales-Mireles v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 53 min 6 speakers 5 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court hearing in Rosales‑Mireles v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case sixteen ninety four ninety three, Rosales Mirales versus the United States. Ms. Davidson?

Unknown 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The government concedes that the Fifth Circuit's shocks the conscience standard is the wrong approach for a Court of Appeals to apply under the fourth prawn of plain error review. The question remains, how should a Court of Appeals exercise its discretion when confronted with an obvious guidelines error that probably results in a defendant serving a longer prison sentence? We ask the Court to recognise what every circuit but the fifth already has. That is, in the ordinary case, such an error is seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings and warrants correction.

John G. Roberts 0:51

One one day? I mean if you're if the person is in uh prison one extra day, uh that pe will cause people to look at judicial proceedings uh as lacking fairness and integrity?

Unknown 1:05

I believe so under the f under the an analysis of the fourth prawn.

How does the government argue that the Fifth Circuit’s “shocks the conscience” test is wrong?

Unknown 1:10

Certainly a sentence of An extra twenty years versus a day twenty years is worse. But under the analysis of the fourth prawn, the question really is: does the nature of the error frustrate the purposes serve? by the rule at issue. And in the context of the guidelines, Um A guidelines error directly frustrates the very purposes served. uh by the sentencing guidelines scheme. uh d the congressional goals to promote uniformity and proportionality and to avoid unwarranted disparity. to achieve parsimony, meaning that a defendant is sentenced to the least amount of time necessary to effectuate the statutory goals. and uh to have respect for the district court.

John G. Roberts 1:57

No, and these are all reasons that you uh would uh consider when the question is when there's an objection uh and the question is raised. Here we're dealing with the situation was when there was no objection, so we're in the uh context of plain error. So it seems to me that you have to argue more than just This was wrong and it ought to be fixed.

Unknown 2:18

Agreed, this court has always said something more is required, but at at this point a defendant has met his burden to show a plain error that affects substantial rights. We have said uh many times that Correction under the plain error doctrine. should be exercised sparingly. But I take it your argument is in the context of a guidelines era. The discretion should not be exercised sparingly, it should be exercised routinely. Well, Your Honor, I think the context is that fifty two B applies to the grand universe of errors and so guideline errors remain a narrow um type of error that can arise. And statistically speaking, in the last fiscal year, of the thousands of sentencing appeals that were raised, less than six percent got remanded because they raised a guideline calculation error.

Unknown 3:18

So we have the empirical evidence which is cited on page twelve of the yellow reply brief um that in fact uh it doesn't happen very often. But then you are saying you are saying that guidelines errors are are exceptions. to the general rule. Yeah. Plain error review. uh should yield corrections. Sparingly, you are saying that this is a category. Where It should be exercised routinely. I think a guideline error presents a nat the nature of the guideline error is such that it ordinarily will have that effect, but it won't always.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:01

And and why is that? Why are guideline errors a category in which we should kind of flip what usually happens? It goes from sparingly to most of the time.

Unknown 4:11

As the court has recognized in Pew and Molina Martinez, um the uh sentencing guidelines provide the essential framework for federal sentencing and there is a well documented anchoring effect so that when there is an erroneously high guidelines range, um there's a significant risk that the defendant was sentenced to a longer prison time than he otherwise would have had the district court not been influenced by the heir. It's That

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:36

seems more a prong three question, isn't it? The quest you know, that that most uh guideline calculation errors are going to uh have an effect on the o on on on the sentence.