In the case of Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 2017, Florencio Rosales-Mireles challenged his sentence for illegal reentry into the U.S., arguing that a mistake in his pre-sentence report led to an incorrect calculation of his advisory sentencing range under federal guidelines. The error was not identified until after he had been sentenced and appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed there was an error but did not correct it because they believed it didn't seriously affect "the fairness, integrity or public reputation" of judicial proceedings as required by precedent law (United States v. Olano). However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that courts should exercise their discretion to correct such errors if they can reasonably affect a defendant's decision-making during plea bargaining or other aspects of their defense strategy. In a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Sotomayor, the court vacated Rosales-Mireles' sentence and remanded back to lower court for resentencing without the error.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosales-Mireles v. United States, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the majority had misinterpreted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) and its "plain error" standard. They contended that a plain error should not be corrected unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The dissenters believed this high bar was not met in this case where there was only a minor sentencing guideline calculation mistake which did not result in an excessive sentence outside statutory limits. They also expressed concern about potential implications on prosecutorial discretion and resources if courts were to correct every minor miscalculation or oversight without considering whether they truly undermine the justice system's credibility.