First Circuit finds plain error when sentence based on inaccurate facts

The First Circuit handed down a notable little sentencing opinion dealing with plain error yesterday in US v. Gonzalez-Castillo, No. 07-2134 (1st Cir. April 9, 2009) (available here).  Here is how the opinion starts:

In this sentencing appeal, appellant, Ynocencio González-Castillo (“González”) –- a Dominican national who pled guilty to unlawfully entering the United States after being previously deported –- challenges the sentence imposed on him by the district court.  The only issue presented is whether the sentencing court committed plain error when it imposed a sentence based, in part, on a fact not supported by the record.  After careful consideration, we conclude that the facts presented by this appeal require that appellant’s sentence be vacated and that the case be remanded for resentencing.

The key inaccurate fact in Gonzalez-Castillo concerned the defendant having a prior unlawful entry conviction, which he did not in fact have.  As the First Circuit opinion details, the record makes pretty clear that the sentencing court relied heavily on this inaccurate fact at sentencing.  It is heartening to see the First Circuit recognize that the resulting sentencing was infected by plain error and had to be corrected; it is disheartening to discover that the Justice Department was sought to have affirmed an erroneous sentence based on inaccurate facts.