appeals shall determine whether the sentence-(1) was imposed in violation of law; ... (3) is outside the applicable guideline range, and is unreasonable....” 4 .In order for "an appellate court [to] correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) 'error,' (2) that is 'plain,' and (3) that 'affect[s] substantial rights.' ” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1548-49, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). In this case, as will be more fully discussed, there is plain error-an upward departure imposed in violation of the law. This error affects Velez’s substantial rights as it subjects him to an increased sentence. United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1395 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Anderson, 850 F.2d 563, 566
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 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 an error affected substantial rights by subjecting the defendant to a much harsher sentence than otherwise would have been authorized holding that a sentence to a term of imprisonment ten years greater than the applicable maximum affected the defendants substantial rights holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred