The state of South Carolina provided Oscar Guevara Salamanca no notice of the date, location, or time of a hearing to revoke his probation. Then, in his absence and without his having access to counsel, it revoked his probation and sentenced him to serve five years in prison. Years later, the district court below relied on the state revocation sentence to increase Mr. Guevara Salamanca's sentencing guideline range from 70-87 months to 130-162 months and sentenced him to 130 months in prison for illegally reentering the United States.

The panel majority below, the dissenting judge, and the state of South Carolina now agree that the state's revocation proceeding was "no doubt a violation of his right to due process under the Constitution." Pet. App. at 3; id. at 5 (Stranch, J., dissenting); see also Osbey v. State, 825 S.E.2d 48, 51 (S.C. 2019). But the panel majority concluded it was nonetheless proper for the district court to rely upon the plainly unconstitutional five-year sentence to nearly double Mr. Guevara Salamanca's federal sentence for illegal reentry.

The question presented is this:

May a federal district court enhance a federal sentence based on a prior sentence imposed by way of a clear and complete deprivation of the individual's due process right to be heard?

May a federal district court enhance a federal sentence based on a prior sentence imposed by way of a clear and complete deprivation of the individual's due-process right-to-be-heard