United States v. Donald John Bankston, III, 945 F.3d 1316

In spring 2016, firearms, ammunition, and two body‑armor vests were stolen from a law‑enforcement vehicle. Two days later Bankston sold one stolen gun, the two vests, ammunition, and methamphetamine to an undercover detective via a confidential informant.
Bankston pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession (as a felon) and one count of distributing methamphetamine.
The Presentence Investigation Report applied a two‑level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 for the “use” of body armor, treating Bankston’s sale of the vests as “use as a means of bartering.” Bankston did not object in district court.
The enhancement raised his offense level to 27; with Criminal History VI, the Guidelines range was 130–162 months. The district court sentenced Bankston to 130 months (the low end) per the government’s recommendation.
On appeal Bankston raised (for the first time) that the § 3B1.5 enhancement was inapplicable because selling is not a covered form of “use.”
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for plain error, concluded selling is not “bartering” (and thus not a covered use), found the error obvious and prejudicial, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sale of body armor constitutes “use” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5	Bankston: sale is not a covered form of “use”; guideline commentary limits “use” to protection or barter	Government: enhancement applies because Congress/Commission intended to deter distribution and possession by criminals; sale should be treated as equivalent to barter for purposes of the enhancement	Sale is not a form of “barter” or “use” under the plain language/commentary of § 3B1.5; enhancement improper
Whether plain‑error review permits relief despite no district‑court objection	Bankston: the guideline error was obvious and affected substantial rights because his sentence fell at the low end of an inflated range	Government: relied on legislative purpose to support the enhancement and no plain error	Court: plain error found (obvious error, prejudicial, and injures fairness) — vacated sentence

Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (framework for correcting forfeited errors on appeal)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (showing Guidelines error often satisfies prejudice prong)
United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2009) (plain‑error standard application)
United States v. Juarez, 866 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2017) (concluding sale of body armor not covered by § 3B1.5 barter language)
United States v. Perez, 366 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2004) (apply statutory‑construction rules to Sentencing Guidelines)
United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2013) (Sentencing Guidelines commentary is authoritative absent inconsistency)
United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain language controls over legislative history)
United States v. Shannon, 631 F.3d 1187 (11th Cir. 2011) (presume Sentencing Commission meant what it said)