Presentence Report Typos Do Not Create Plain-Error Guideline Miscalculations, and Ineffective-Assistance Claims Usually Belong in § 2255 Absent a Developed Record

1. Introduction

In United States v. Juan Antonio Garcia, the Eleventh Circuit addressed two recurring post-sentencing issues: (1) when an error in a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) amounts to a reversible guidelines miscalculation under plain-error review; and (2) when an appellate court should entertain ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal rather than requiring the defendant to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The defendant, Juan Antonio Garcia, a 30-year-old police officer, pleaded guilty to attempted production of child pornography and attempted enticement of a minor. The PSI calculated an advisory guideline range of 292 to 365 months based on a total offense level of 40 and criminal history category I. At sentencing, the district court identified and clarified a typographical inconsistency in the PSI regarding an intermediate offense-level figure before acceptance of responsibility. The court then imposed a 310-month sentence within the stated guideline range. No contemporaneous objections were made.

After sentencing, Garcia filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. The district court ultimately reentered the judgment to permit a timely direct appeal and dismissed the remaining ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice pending resolution of the direct appeal. On appeal, Garcia challenged (a) an alleged guideline miscalculation tied to the PSI typo and (b) sought direct appellate review of his ineffective-assistance claims.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that:

• No guideline miscalculation occurred: the district court correctly computed Garcia’s offense level and guideline range; the PSI “typo” did not alter the calculations the court applied.
• No plain error (and no effect on substantial rights): even assuming a clerical error, the district court did not rely on it, so Garcia could not show an error affecting substantial rights under plain-error review.
• Ineffective-assistance claims were not considered on direct appeal: consistent with Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit practice, the proper vehicle is a § 2255 motion unless the record is sufficiently developed or the district court entertained the claim—conditions not met here.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129 (2018)

The panel used Rosales-Mireles v. United States for the governing framework for plain-error review of unpreserved guideline errors. Rosales-Mireles recognizes that guideline miscalculations can constitute reversible plain error because the Guidelines materially shape sentencing outcomes. Here, however, the Eleventh Circuit applied Rosales-Mireles largely to show what Garcia had to establish and then concluded he failed at step one (no error) and, alternatively, step three (no impact on substantial rights) because the court did not rely on the typo.

United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002)

United States v. Bender supplied two propositions: (1) the standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims is de novo (as a mixed question of law and fact), and (2) the limited exception under which the Eleventh Circuit may consider ineffective assistance on direct appeal where the record is “sufficiently developed” or the district court “entertain[ed] the claim.” The panel framed Garcia’s request for direct-review within this Bender exception and rejected it as inapplicable.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

The court restated the core two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington: (1) deficient performance falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) prejudice—a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s errors. This recitation set up the court’s insistence that an adequate factual record is usually required to evaluate both prongs, particularly prejudice.

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003)

Massaro v. United States provided the Supreme Court’s institutional rationale for channeling ineffective-assistance claims to collateral review: direct-appeal records are often incomplete or inadequate for evaluating counsel’s performance, and § 2255 proceedings permit record development. The panel relied on Massaro to justify declining to reach Garcia’s claims on direct appeal.

United States v. Padgett, 917 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019)

United States v. Padgett reinforced the Eleventh Circuit’s alignment with Massaro: a § 2255 motion is the “preferred vehicle” for ineffective assistance claims. The panel cited Padgett as circuit authority confirming that preference.

McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002)

McIver v. United States supplied procedural guidance for situations involving both a direct appeal and collateral claims—endorsing dismissal without prejudice or holding collateral claims in abeyance pending direct appeal. The panel approved the district court’s decision to dismiss Garcia’s remaining ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice, situating that approach within established Eleventh Circuit practice.

United States v. Gbenedio, 95 F.4th 1319 (11th Cir. 2024)

United States v. Gbenedio was cited to clarify what “record sufficiently developed” means: the record is not adequately developed “without evidence that suggests the defendant’s counsel was ineffective.” This case served as a modern articulation of the record-development threshold that Garcia did not meet.

United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010)

United States v. Patterson narrowed the direct-appeal exception further, warning that “some indication” of deficient performance, without more, is not enough. The panel used Patterson to reject Garcia’s attempt to bootstrap ineffective-assistance review from his separate guideline-typo argument.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

(A) The PSI “typo” did not produce a guideline error

Garcia’s principal sentencing claim was that he was sentenced on the basis of a miscalculated offense level because a paragraph in the PSI incorrectly referenced an offense level of 41 at an intermediate stage. The district court, however, identified the inconsistency and clarified on the record that:

• the correct offense level before acceptance of responsibility was 43 (consistent with the PSI’s bolded calculations),
• the acceptance reduction yielded a total offense level of 40,
• criminal history category remained I, and
• the advisory range was 292–365 months.

The Eleventh Circuit treated the issue as fundamentally factual and arithmetic: the district court stated and applied the correct calculations. Because the court did not sentence Garcia based on the erroneous textual reference, there was no guideline miscalculation to correct.

(B) Plain-error analysis failed at “error” and “substantial rights”

Applying Rosales-Mireles, the panel emphasized that plain-error relief requires an actual, plain error that affects substantial rights. The court’s reasoning operated in two layers:

• No error: the guideline range used by the sentencing judge was correct.
• No effect on substantial rights (in the alternative): even if the typo could be labeled “error,” the sentencing judge did not rely on it, so Garcia could not show a reasonable probability of a different sentence.

This is an important nuance: not every clerical defect in a PSI is treated as a guideline “miscalculation.” The decisive question is whether the sentencing court actually adopted and used the wrong offense level/range in imposing sentence.

(C) Ineffective assistance: direct appeal is the exception, not the rule

On ineffective assistance, the panel adhered to the now-familiar division of labor between direct appeals and collateral review:

• Strickland claims typically require evidence outside the trial/sentencing transcript—e.g., counsel’s advice, strategy, communications, investigation steps, and reasons for decisions.
• Massaro and Padgett favor § 2255 because it allows evidentiary development (including testimony from trial counsel).
• The Eleventh Circuit’s Bender exception applies only when the record is sufficiently developed or the district court entertained and created findings on the claim.

Here, neither condition was met. The district court had vacated its earlier order on Garcia’s § 2255 claims, granted relief only as to the notice-of-appeal issue, and dismissed the remaining ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice. As a result, there were “virtually no district court findings to review,” and the record contained no developed evidentiary basis for the ineffective-assistance allegations. Under Gbenedio and Patterson, that meant direct-appeal review was inappropriate.

3.3. Impact

(A) Sentencing practice: distinguishing clerical PSI errors from reversible guideline miscalculations

Although unpublished, the decision reinforces a practical rule for sentencing litigation in the Eleventh Circuit: a defendant cannot convert a PSI textual inconsistency into reversible error when the district court: (1) identifies the inconsistency, (2) states the correct guideline calculations on the record, and (3) sentences using the correct range. For future defendants, the case underscores that plain-error claims are particularly difficult where the sentencing transcript shows the judge used correct numbers—even if the PSI contains a stray incorrect reference.

(B) Appellate strategy: preserving objections and building an ineffective-assistance record

The opinion illustrates two strategic consequences:

• Preservation matters: Garcia faced plain-error review because no objections were made to the court’s findings or the manner of sentencing. Even a potentially colorable guideline issue becomes harder to win when not preserved.
• § 2255 remains the primary forum for ineffective assistance: defendants seeking to raise ineffective assistance should anticipate the need for evidentiary development and district-court findings. Absent those, the Eleventh Circuit will generally decline direct-review.

(C) Procedural handling of out-of-time appeals via § 2255

The procedural posture also reflects a common remedial pathway: when a defendant establishes (or the government concedes) a failure-to-appeal claim, the district court may vacate and reenter judgment to restore direct-appeal rights, while dismissing other ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice. This sequencing avoids duplication and conforms to the approach noted in McIver v. United States.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-error review

Plain-error review applies when an issue was not raised in the district court. The defendant must show: (1) an error, (2) that is plain (clear under current law), and (3) that affected substantial rights (usually meaning it likely changed the outcome). Even then, the appellate court corrects it only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. In Garcia’s case, the court said there was no error because the guideline math the judge used was correct.

Guidelines “miscalculation” vs. “clerical mistake”

A guidelines miscalculation occurs when the court uses the wrong offense level, criminal history category, or range to sentence the defendant. A clerical or typographical mistake in a PSI is not enough by itself; what matters is whether the sentencing judge actually relied on the wrong calculation.

Why ineffective assistance is usually not decided on direct appeal

Ineffective-assistance claims often depend on facts not in the trial record—what counsel advised, why counsel made certain choices, and whether different actions would likely have changed the result. A § 2255 motion allows evidence (including testimony) to be introduced. Direct appeal usually cannot.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Juan Antonio Garcia reaffirms two operational principles in federal criminal appeals:

• Guideline-typo claims fail where the sentencing court used the correct calculations: an internal PSI inconsistency does not establish reversible plain error if the record shows the judge adopted and applied the correct offense level and range.
• Ineffective-assistance claims generally belong in § 2255 proceedings: absent a sufficiently developed record or district-court findings, the Eleventh Circuit will decline to adjudicate such claims on direct appeal.

Taken together, the decision emphasizes the primacy of the sentencing transcript and district-court findings in guideline-error litigation, and it preserves the established institutional preference for developing ineffective-assistance claims through collateral proceedings designed for fact-finding.