United States v. Terry Bridgewater, 705 F. App'x 304

Defendant Terry Bridgewater pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 98 months, to run consecutively to undischarged state sentences for three burglary convictions.
The district court treated one state burglary conviction as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 and nonetheless assigned three criminal history points for that conviction.
Bridgewater did not raise the criminal-history argument below; appellate review is therefore for plain error.
The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) (rather than § 5G1.3(b)) and imposed the instant federal sentence consecutively, stating it exercised discretion under § 5G1.3(d).
Bridgewater argued on appeal that: (1) assigning criminal-history points for conduct treated as relevant conduct was error; and (2) the court misapplied § 5G1.3 and mistakenly believed it was required to impose consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in assigning criminal-history points for a state burglary conviction treated as relevant conduct	Bridgewater: court erred (and plain error) in assigning 3 points for an offense treated as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3	Government: even if assignment was erroneous, other burglary convictions provided the same 3 points; relevant-conduct finding not plainly erroneous	Court: Clear error occurred but not reversible under plain-error standard because same points would have arisen from other non-relevant-conduct convictions; no effect on substantial rights
Whether § 5G1.3(d) was misapplied and whether consecutive sentence was required	Bridgewater: court should have applied § 5G1.3(b) to run sentences concurrently when some prior state offenses are relevant conduct; court erroneously thought consecutive sentence was mandatory	Government: court properly applied § 5G1.3(d) and exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentence; record shows court understood its discretion	Court: No error—application of § 5G1.3(d) consistent with guideline and commentary; court had discretion and permissibly imposed consecutive sentence

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard requires showing effect on substantial rights)
United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657 (5th Cir.) (preservation and plain-error review)
United States v. Cade, 279 F.3d 265 (5th Cir.) (criminal-history points and relevant conduct)
United States v. Hinojosa, 484 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (review of relevant-conduct factual findings)
United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir.) (plain-error harmlessness in sentencing)
United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir.) (plain-error and sentencing calculations)
United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir.) (preservation and guideline interpretation)