than he should have had, making his criminal history category V when it should have been category IV. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A. Accordingly, the district court applied an advisory guidelines range of 70-87 months instead of the correct advisory guidelines range of 57-71 months. Avalos-Martinez’s sentence of 72 months exceeds the correct advisory guidelines range. In addition, the district court had stated that it did not intend to impose a sentence above the applicable guidelines range. Based on the district court’s expressed intention and the fact that AvalosMartinez’s sentence exceeded the correct advisory guidelines range, the district court’s error affected his substantial rights, which the Government also con cedes. See United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 290 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). The final issue we must decide is whether
holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines holding that a defendants substantial rights had been affected when the correct and incorrect guidelines ranges overlapped the defendant was sentenced above the correct guidelines range and it was not apparent from the record that the defendant would have received an aboveguidelines sentence holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory