affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As we have explained, the district court erred when it gave Rodriguez two levels instead of three for acceptance of responsibility. The district court’s error was plain, because it is contrary to the law at the time of Rodriguez’s appeal. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We also conclude that Rodriguez’s substantial rights were affected: because he was entitled to a lower Guideline range than that under which he was actually sentenced, the outcome of Rodriguez’s sentencing was affected such that our confidence in that outcome is undermined. Cf. Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 202-04, 121 S.Ct. 696, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.
holding that it is error to engraft onto the prejudice branch of the strickland test a requirement that any increase in a sentence must meet a standard of significance holding in the ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel context that any increase in a defendants sentence is prejudicial holding that in pleading scienter arguing that the motive for defrauding investors was to increase the companys profits or to increase officer compensation is not sufficient holding that a sixfold increase in sentence involved no enhancement of sentence because harrisonphilpot was charged and convicted of conspiracy the extent of the conspiracy caused the tremendous increase in her sentence holding that there is no baseline or quantifiable increase in a defendants sentence that must be shown to establish prejudice under strickland