United States v. Blanco, 27 F.4th 375

Blanco pleaded guilty to forcibly attempting to strangle his then‑girlfriend, Morgan Greer, aboard a Royal Caribbean ship in international waters in November 2018.
Greer reported pain, later observed bruising and red marks by an FBI agent; forensic evidence (hair root on a towel) was recovered.
The PSR applied a base offense level 14, +3 for attempted strangling, +3 for bodily injury, and -3 for acceptance, yielding total offense level 17.
The PSR also assigned 3 criminal history points for a 2002 conviction (leading to Criminal History Category V and a Guidelines range of 46–57 months).
The district court overruled Blanco’s bodily‑injury objection, granted a downward variance, and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised release.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bodily‑injury enhancement but vacated and remanded for resentencing because the 2002 conviction was improperly counted and that error affected Blanco’s substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 3 criminal‑history points should be assessed for Blanco's 2002 conviction	Gov't conceded the points were assigned in error but argued the error did not affect substantial rights because the sentence rested on §3553(a) factors independent of the Guidelines	Blanco argued the 2002 sentence (probated/suspended and later a one‑year term after revocation) did not produce a term >13 months and was imposed more than 10 years before the instant offense, so no points should be added; the incorrect range affected his substantial rights	Court found plain error: points were improper, the incorrect Guidelines range likely affected the sentence, so vacated and remanded for resentencing
Whether the three‑level bodily‑injury enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2A2.2(b)(3)(A) was supported	Gov't relied on Greer’s testimony about pain and breathing difficulty, agent’s observation of bruising and red marks, and forensic hair evidence	Blanco argued medical exam showed only neck pain with no visible marks, photos were inconclusive or similar to pre‑assault photos, and medical care was sought for security reasons only	Court affirmed: factual finding of bodily injury was plausible in light of the whole record; victim testimony and agent observations supported the enhancement

Johnson v. United States, 943 F.3d 735 (5th Cir.) (plain‑error review framework in sentencing appeals)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can affect substantial rights and requires relief when outcome likely different)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (failure to correct plain Guidelines errors ordinarily undermines fairness, integrity, and public reputation)
United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir.) (clear error when straightforward Guidelines application reveals mistake)
United States v. Rodriguez‑Parra, 581 F.3d 227 (5th Cir.) (suspended portion of sentence not counted as time served for criminal‑history calculation)
United States v. Arviso‑Mata, 442 F.3d 382 (5th Cir.) (ten‑year lookback for short sentences and use of original sentence date after revocation)
United States v. Ruiz‑Hernandez, 890 F.3d 202 (5th Cir.) (factual findings at sentencing reviewed for clear error; plausibility standard)
United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (victim testimony provides strong evidence for bodily‑injury enhancement)
United States v. Smith, 822 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.) (affirming bodily‑injury enhancement where physical effects like bruising or hair loss were shown)
United States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation and clear‑error review of sentencing facts)