Alternative §3553(a) Sentences and Written Statements of Reasons Defeat Plain-Error Challenges to Guideline Miscalculations: The Fifth Circuit Reaffirms Hott and Clarifies Diggles

Introduction

In United States v. Sealed (5th Cir. July 14, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a 210-month sentence imposed for a methamphetamine conspiracy despite the appellant’s contention that the district court misapplied the career-offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. The panel did not resolve whether the enhancement was correctly applied. Instead, under plain-error review, it held that any possible Guidelines miscalculation did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the district court (1) considered both the enhanced and unenhanced ranges and (2) made clear—both during sentencing and in a written Statement of Reasons—that it would impose the same sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors irrespective of the operative Guidelines range.

The opinion sits squarely in the Fifth Circuit’s Molina-Martinez line of cases prescribing a “safe harbor” for sentencing judges who expressly announce an alternative, Guidelines-independent sentence under § 3553(a). It also addresses an increasingly litigated procedural wrinkle: whether an appellate court may rely on a district court’s written Statement of Reasons (SOR) to support harmlessness when the oral pronouncement did not use “magic words.” Reaffirming United States v. Hott, the panel held that it may, and clarified that the en banc decision in United States v. Diggles—governing conflicts between oral pronouncements and written judgments—does not prohibit reliance on a consistent written SOR for harmless-error analysis.

Case Background

The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846). Investigators intercepted two packages containing 444.4 grams and 879.1 grams of pure methamphetamine linked to the defendant. A presentence report initially calculated a total offense level of 31 and criminal history score of 39, yielding an advisory range of 188–235 months. After the Government’s objection, the probation office deemed the defendant a career offender (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1), raising the total offense level to 34 and the range to 262–327 months. The Government also moved for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 reduction based on substantial assistance and recommended 210 months.

Before and during sentencing, the district court acknowledged the parties’ dispute over the career-offender enhancement, identified both the enhanced and unenhanced ranges, and repeatedly stated that it would impose 210 months based on the § 3553(a) factors regardless of which range applied. Emphasizing the defendant’s “extensive criminal history” (the PSR recounted at least 20 convictions and 39 criminal history points), the court imposed 210 months and five years of supervised release. In its written SOR, the court added: “In the event the guideline determination(s) made in this case are found to be incorrect, the court would impose a sentence identical to that imposed in this case. (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).”

Summary of the Opinion

On appeal, the defendant argued for the first time on new grounds that the career-offender enhancement was wrongly applied. The panel reviewed for plain error and held that, even assuming an error and that it was clear or obvious, the alleged miscalculation did not affect substantial rights. Citing Molina-Martinez v. United States and its own precedents, the court explained that a Guidelines error is harmless where the district court:

• Considered both the (disputed) enhanced range and the (putative) correct range, and
• Unambiguously stated it would impose the same sentence under § 3553(a) regardless of which range applied.

The panel found both criteria satisfied by the sentencing colloquy and the written SOR. It rejected the argument that the written SOR could not be considered, reaffirming Hott’s holding that such written statements are appropriately considered when consistent with the oral pronouncement, and clarifying that Diggles—addressing conflicts between oral and written terms—does not bar reliance on a consistent written SOR in harmless-error analysis. The judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

The court’s reasoning draws on a line of Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit decisions that govern when a Guidelines miscalculation warrants relief:

• Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016): Recognizes the “anchoring” effect of the Guidelines, such that an incorrect range typically affects substantial rights. But it also provides a pathway to harmlessness or no-prejudice where the district court “thought the sentence it chose was appropriate irrespective of the Guidelines range.” This opinion applies precisely that exception.
• Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009): Sets forth the elements of plain-error review: error, clear or obvious, affecting substantial rights, and seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The panel resolves the appeal at the third prong.
• United States v. Guzman-Rendon, 864 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Reyna-Aragon, 992 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2021): Establish the Fifth Circuit’s two-part “safe harbor” for Guidelines mistakes—no relief where the sentencing judge considered both ranges and said it would impose the same sentence either way. The panel reiterates and applies this template.
• United States v. Greer, 20 F.4th 1071 (5th Cir. 2021): Confirms that no “magic words” are required; the record need only make sufficiently clear that the sentence does not depend on the disputed range. This undercuts challenges premised on the absence of a particular formulaic statement.
• United States v. Hott, 866 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2017): Authorizes reliance on the district court’s written SOR, where consistent with the oral pronouncement, to demonstrate that any error did not affect substantial rights. Here, the panel squarely reaffirms Hott and uses it to reject the appellant’s invitation to disregard the written SOR.
• United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc): Holds that where there is a conflict between an oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The panel clarifies that Diggles does not overrule Hott and does not prevent using a consistent written SOR to support harmlessness; Diggles addresses conflicts, not consistency.
• United States v. Stoglin, 34 F.4th 415 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 2016): Emphasize that appellate courts can take sentencing judges at their word that they would impose the same sentence irrespective of Guidelines calculations.
• United States v. Daniel, No. 24-30345, 2025 WL 586821 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025) (per curiam); United States v. Andrews, 768 F. App’x 189 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); United States v. Martinez-Rivera, No. 24-20031, 2025 WL 985711 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025); United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2001): These opinions reinforce the safe-harbor framework, the permissibility of considering the written SOR, and the futility of remand where the district court has made its alternative sentence clear.

Legal Reasoning

The panel conducts the plain-error analysis with a focus on the third prong—whether the alleged error affected substantial rights. Without deciding whether the career-offender enhancement was erroneously applied or whether any error was “clear or obvious,” the court holds there was no prejudice because the record establishes the sentence did not depend on the disputed range.

The opinion identifies two dispositive features in the record:

• The district court explicitly acknowledged and “considered both advisory Guidelines’ ranges”—with and without the career-offender enhancement—at a sidebar and during the hearing.
• The district court unequivocally announced an alternative, Guidelines-independent sentence under § 3553(a). The court said it “does not intend to use what I believe to be the correctly calculated Guidelines and instead will use the Section 3553(a) variance or a so-called non-guideline sentence,” and repeatedly explained that the 210-month term was the “appropriate sentence” based on § 3553(a) factors such as the seriousness of the offense, deterrence, protection of the public, and, notably, the defendant’s extraordinary criminal history.

The written SOR then crystallized the point: even if the Guidelines determinations were wrong, the court “would impose a sentence identical to that imposed in this case” under § 3553(a). The panel, citing Hott, holds it may rely on this written statement because it is consistent with the oral explanation; Diggles does not compel a different result since it governs only in the presence of a conflict between oral and written terms.

The court also notes that the sentencing judge’s chosen term—210 months—was within the unenhanced range (188–235 months) and below the enhanced range (262–327 months), further buttressing the conclusion that the sentence reflected a § 3553(a) judgment independent of any arguable miscalculation.

Impact and Practical Consequences

Although unpublished and therefore nonprecedential under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the decision adds weight to an entrenched Fifth Circuit practice with several practical implications:

• Alternative-sentence safe harbor. The opinion reinforces that district courts can insulate sentences from Guidelines-calculation challenges by:
  • Explicitly calculating and acknowledging the competing ranges;
  • Stating on the record that the same sentence would be imposed under § 3553(a) regardless of which range applies; and
  • Documenting that stance in a consistent written SOR.
  When these steps are taken, the appellate court is likely to find no effect on substantial rights under plain-error review.
• Continued vitality of Hott; limited scope of Diggles. The panel clarifies that Diggles does not diminish Hott’s rule permitting reliance on the SOR in harmlessness analysis where there is no conflict with the oral pronouncement. Expect continued reliance on written SORs to confirm harmlessness/no prejudice.
• Defense preservation strategies. The case underscores the importance of preserving objections on the same grounds in the district court to avoid plain-error review. On appeal, challenging an alternative § 3553(a) sentence requires demonstrating that the court’s § 3553(a) analysis was still materially anchored to a tainted range or that the court did not actually consider the competing ranges—no small task when the judge has stated the contrary.
• Sentencing practice. Judges who intend to vary or treat the Guidelines as advisory should create a clear record that their chosen sentence rests on § 3553(a) and would be the same under any plausible range. Doing so reduces remands and promotes finality.
• Substance over form. Greer’s “no magic words” caution resonates here: appellate review looks for clarity and consistency, not formulaic incantations. Still, concrete, repeated statements—especially a written SOR—are best practice.

In short, the decision will be cited alongside Hott, Reyna-Aragon, and related cases as persuasive authority supporting affirmance when a sentencing judge thoroughly documents an alternative, Guidelines-independent sentence under § 3553(a).

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Career Offender (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1): A designation that increases a defendant’s offense level and criminal history category if, at the time of the instant felony crime of violence or controlled-substance offense, the defendant was at least 18 and has at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled-substance offenses. It substantially raises the advisory range.
• Guidelines Range vs. § 3553(a) Variance: The Sentencing Guidelines are advisory. After correctly calculating the range, a court may “depart” under Guideline provisions (e.g., § 5K1.1 for substantial assistance) or “vary” under the statutory factors in § 3553(a). A “non-Guideline” or “variance” sentence rests on the statutory factors rather than a Guidelines departure mechanism.
• Plain Error (Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)): When an issue is not preserved in the district court, the appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) that affected substantial rights (i.e., there is a reasonable probability of a different result absent the error), and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
• Substantial Rights in Sentencing: Because Guidelines ranges “anchor” sentencing decisions, a miscalculation often affects substantial rights. But if the judge indicates the chosen sentence is appropriate independent of the Guidelines, prejudice is lacking.
• Statement of Reasons (SOR): A written form accompanying the judgment where the district judge records the Guideline calculations and the reasons for the sentence. In the Fifth Circuit, a consistent SOR can be used to confirm that any Guidelines error did not affect the sentence.
• Diggles Principle: If there’s a conflict between an oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. This does not bar reliance on a consistent SOR to assess harmlessness; it prevents courts from using the written judgment to alter the terms orally imposed.

Key Observations and Practice Pointers

• Building an appellate-safe record: Judges should explicitly (i) recognize both the disputed and undisputed ranges, (ii) state that the same sentence would be imposed under § 3553(a) regardless of which range applies, and (iii) articulate concrete § 3553(a) reasons—especially those unrelated to the Guidelines calculation (e.g., extensive criminal history, deterrence, protection of the public). Mirroring these points in the SOR is highly advisable.
• Defense counsel strategies: Preserve objections on the precise grounds you intend to raise on appeal. If the court announces an alternative sentence, consider requesting clarification of the weight given to the Guidelines to preserve an argument that the sentence was still “anchored” to an erroneous range. Where appropriate, shift focus to substantive reasonableness rather than procedural error.
• Government approach: When a Guidelines application is contested, encourage the court to make an express alternative § 3553(a) finding and to memorialize it in the SOR. This opinion confirms the effectiveness of that approach.

Conclusion

United States v. Sealed reinforces a practical and now-familiar message in Fifth Circuit sentencing law: when a district court considers competing Guidelines ranges and unmistakably anchors its sentence in § 3553(a), stating it would impose the same term irrespective of the range—and documents that stance in a consistent SOR—any Guidelines miscalculation will rarely, if ever, warrant relief under plain-error review. The opinion also provides helpful clarity that Diggles does not undermine Hott; appellate courts may rely on a written Statement of Reasons, so long as it is consistent with the oral pronouncement, to conclude that a Guidelines error did not affect substantial rights. The decision thus promotes clear sentencing records, reduces unnecessary remands, and provides concrete guidance to trial and appellate counsel on how best to frame and preserve sentencing issues.