Presumption Not Warranted: Prejudice Requirement for Statutory Maximum Errors in Sentencing

Introduction

This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Calderon-Padilla, No. 24-2097 (10th Cir. May 13, 2025), which clarifies when a criminal defendant must demonstrate prejudice after a sentencing court miscalculates the statutory maximum term. The appellant, Wilson Rene Calderon-Padilla, challenged his 42-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Both the Government and the Probation Office mistakenly believed that he had a prior “aggravated felony,” triggering a 20-year statutory maximum, when in fact his two prior convictions were ordinary felonies and the correct maximum was ten years. Calderon-Padilla argued on appeal that prejudice should be presumed from that error; the Government contended the defendant must bear the burden of proving prejudice. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the Government and affirmed the sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The court addressed two core questions:

Whether a district court’s miscalculation of the statutory maximum sentence requires a presumption of prejudice on appeal.
If no presumption applies, whether the defendant nonetheless carried his burden to show the error affected a substantial right.

Assuming without deciding that the district court believed the statutory maximum was 20 years, the Tenth Circuit held:

No presumption of prejudice attaches to a sentencing court’s error about the statutory maximum. Unlike miscalculations of the Guidelines range—where the Supreme Court in Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016), presumes a reasonable probability of a different result—the statutory maximum can be treated at different points in the judge’s analysis, so the mere error does not inherently taint the outcome.
Because Calderon-Padilla did not raise the issue below, he must show that the error affected a substantial right. He failed to do so: the district court never cited the statutory maximum in its sentencing explanation, the imposed term was at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and 42 months is well below the correct 10-year cap.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the 42-month custody term.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Calderon-Padilla opinion builds on a line of Supreme Court and circuit-court authorities governing sentencing error, forfeiture, plain error review, and presumptions of prejudice:

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) – mandates that district courts consider the statutory maximum when selecting a sentence.
United States v. Turner, 55 F.4th 1135, 1144 (7th Cir. 2022) – reiterates that the court must take the statutory maximum into account under § 3553(a).
United States v. Benford, 875 F.3d 1007, 1016 (10th Cir. 2017) – explains that when a defendant forfeits an argument by failing to object, he must then show an effect on a substantial right under a forfeiture/harm analysis.
United States v. Bustamante-Conchas, 850 F.3d 1130, 1138 (10th Cir. 2017) (en banc) – confirms that the defendant generally bears the burden of proving prejudice once the error is preserved or forfeited.
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 198–99 (2016) – presumes prejudice when a sentencing court begins and continues with the wrong applicable Guidelines range (“anchoring effect”).
United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 218–19 (4th Cir. 2005) – recognizes that some errors are inherently prejudicial and may give rise to a presumption.
United States v. Payano, 930 F.3d 186, 193–96 (3d Cir. 2019); United States v. Dominguez, 128 F.4th 226, 233 (4th Cir. 2025); United States v. McCloud, 730 F.3d 600, 603 (6th Cir. 2013) – unanimously reject a presumption of prejudice from statutory‐maximum miscalculations.
United States v. Watson, 476 F.3d 1020, 1024–25 (D.C. Cir. 2007) – remands for a prejudice inquiry when the district court explicitly noted its reliance on the erroneous statutory range.
United States v. Gonzalez-Coronado, 419 F.3d 1090, 1096–97 (10th Cir. 2005) – holds that a misstatement of the statutory maximum is not plain error if the sentence actually falls under the correct maximum.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeds in three steps:

Assume the district court’s error. Without deciding whether the district court itself miscalculated, the Tenth Circuit assumed arguendo that the judge believed the maximum was 20 years rather than the correct 10 years.
Identify the applicable standard. Because Calderon-Padilla did not object in district court, his claim is forfeited and subject to the harmless-error framework; he must “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the district court would have imposed a different sentence.” See Bustamante-Conchas, 850 F.3d at 1138.
Reject a presumption of prejudice. The court contrasts the statutory‐maximum context with Molina-Martinez’s rule for guideline miscalculations. Whereas Guidelines ranges anchor judges at the outset and throughout sentencing, a statutory maximum can function at different stages (e.g., as an initial limit, a backstop check, or only at the end). Because the point of application varies, a mistaken maximum does not necessarily “taint” the entire sentencing calculus. The court follows the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits in refusing to extend Molina-Martinez to statutory‐maximum errors.

Having declined a presumption, the court considers whether the record nonetheless shows prejudice. It concludes that Calderon-Padilla failed to demonstrate any likelihood that a correct understanding of the ten‐year cap would have produced a lighter sentence:

The judge never invoked the statutory maximum in sentencing remarks.
The 42-month term coincides exactly with the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range.
Even under the correct maximum, 42 months is well below the ten-year ceiling.

For these reasons, the court affirms.

3. Impact on Future Cases and Sentencing Practice

Key takeaways for practitioners and courts:

Errors in computing a statutory maximum carry no automatic presumption of prejudice at the appellate level. Defendants must show a reasonable possibility that, but for the error, the district court would have imposed a different sentence.
Because judges can use the statutory maximum at different points (initial proposal, final check), misstatements do not uniformly contaminate the sentencing decision—as miscalculated Guidelines ranges do under Molina-Martinez.
Appellate counsel should emphasize any record evidence that the judge relied on the erroneous maximum (e.g., sentencing comments referencing the cap, comparative sentencing data, or direct statements that a lighter sentence might have been imposed under the correct range).
Sentencing judges who rely on their statutory calculations in remarks risk making themselves vulnerable to a prejudice finding on remand, see Watson, 476 F.3d at 1024–25; careful drafting can avoid ambiguity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Maximum vs. Guidelines Range:
- Statutory Maximum: The highest prison term that Congress authorizes by statute for a particular offense and offender profile (e.g., prior convictions).
- Sentencing Guidelines Range: A framework promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that provides advisory ranges based on offense level and criminal history. Judges must consider but are not bound by it.
Preservation vs. Forfeiture vs. Plain Error:
- Preservation: Timely objection in district court secured full appellate review.
- Forfeiture: Failure to object forfeits the issue, shifting the burden on appeal to show prejudice under the harmless‐error standard (Appellate Rule 52(a)).
- Plain Error: If unpreserved, reversal requires (1) error, (2) plain on its face, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Presumption of Prejudice: In limited contexts—most notably when the wrong Guidelines range anchors the judge’s entire sentencing process—a court may presume that the error likely affected the outcome, sparing the defendant from proving actual prejudice.
Anchoring Effect: A cognitive bias whereby an initial number (the “anchor”) influences subsequent judgments. In Molina-Martinez, the incorrect Guidelines range served as such an anchor.

Conclusion

United States v. Calderon-Padilla establishes that when a district court miscalculates the statutory maximum sentence, appellate courts will not presume prejudice. Instead, an unobjected‐to error is subject to harmless‐error review, and the defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that a correct understanding of the maximum would have yielded a different sentence. This rule preserves flexibility for sentencing judges—who may incorporate statutory ranges at varying stages—and aligns the Tenth Circuit with its sister circuits. Going forward, defense counsel must focus on the record to identify concrete indications of reliance on an erroneous statutory cap if they wish to carry the burden of proving prejudice on appeal.

The decision thus refines sentencing jurisprudence by distinguishing statutory‐maximum errors from the unique anchoring effect of the Guidelines, reinforces the importance of timely objections, and clarifies the allocation of burdens in harmless‐error analysis at sentencing.