plain. With respect to the third and fourth prongs of the plain-error test, we must determine “whether the defendant can show a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, [the defendant] would have received a lesser sentence.” Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 357-62. In Villegas, the court stated that absent the enhancement, the defendant’s “sentencing range would have been reduced from between twenty-one and twenty-seven months to between ten and sixteen months.” Id. at 364. It then held that “[b]ecause these two sentencing ranges do not overlap, the district court’s error necessarily increased [the defendant’s] sentence and thus affected his substantial rights.” Id.; see also United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 468 n. 17 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Gracia-Cantu, 302 F.3d at 312 (same). In the
holding that a sentence to a term of imprisonment ten years greater than the applicable maximum affected the defendants substantial rights recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that because the district courts error resulted in the imposition of a sentence substantially greater than the maximum otherwise permitted under the sentencing guidelines the error affected the defendants substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights