answer Neal’s question, Neal would likely have pleaded not guilty to two counts to which he in fact pleaded guilty. The Government argues that because Neal was given a 360-month sentence for each of the first four Counts, and those sentences were to run concurrently, his ultimate sentence was unaffected by the district court’s error. This argument confuses the sentencing-context and pleading-context standards for determining whether a defendant’s rights have been substantially affected. Compare Mudekunye, 646 F.3d at 289 (“A sentencing error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if he can show a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence.”) with Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333 (<HOLDING>). The distinction between the two contexts
holding that defendant must show reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the sentence would have been significantly less harsh holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea holding that party asserting plain error must show a reasonable probability that but for the error claimed the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error