United States v. Brumfield: Clarifying Bodily Injury Enhancement Under USSG §2B3.1(b)(3)(A) and Plain-Error Prejudice Requirement

Introduction

This commentary examines the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Brumfield, 24-30388 (5th Cir. June 3, 2025), which addresses two intertwined issues in federal sentencing: (1) the proper application of the bodily injury enhancement under §2B3.1(b)(3)(A) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and (2) the standard for showing prejudice under plain‐error review when a guidelines miscalculation occurs. In Brumfield, defendant Jaylon Deshon Brumfield pleaded guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and to a §924(c) firearms offense. The district court applied a two‐level enhancement for bodily injury at sentencing, overruled Brumfield’s objections, and imposed concurrent and consecutive terms of 60 months each. On appeal, Brumfield challenged both the factual basis for the enhancement and the Confrontation Clause. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that (a) the district court clearly erred in finding actual bodily injury but that (b) Brumfield failed to show prejudice because the court expressly stated it would have imposed the same sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) even had the Guidelines range been lower.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit’s per curiam opinion resolved three issues:

• Bodily Injury Enhancement (§2B3.1(b)(3)(A)): The court found clear error in the district court’s factual finding that a victim sustained bodily injury when, in fact, “no bullet found its mark” and there was no evidentiary description of injury.
• Plain-Error Prejudice: Although the enhancement was misapplied, Brumfield could not satisfy the plain‐error prejudice prong because the sentencing court explicitly stated in its Statement of Reasons that it would impose the same sentence under §3553(a) even if the guidelines calculation were incorrect.
• Confrontation Clause: The court held that testimonial hearsay at sentencing does not implicate the Confrontation Clause, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedents.

Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The opinion draws on foundational Sentencing Guidelines and plain‐error precedents, including:

• Sentencing Guidelines Interpretation
  • USSG §2B3.1(b)(3)(A): Two‐level enhancement for “bodily injury.”
  • USSG §1B1.1, comment 1(B): Definition of “bodily injury” as any significant injury “that is painful and obvious, or … of a type for which medical attention ordinarily would be sought.”
• Factual‐Finding Review
  • United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008): De novo review of Guidelines interpretation; clear‐error review of factual findings.
  • United States v. Blanco, 27 F.4th 375, 380–81 (5th Cir. 2022): A district court’s erroneous range calculation is plain error if the guidelines are the starting point and the record is silent on alternative sentencing reasoning.
• Plain-Error Prejudice
  • Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009): To prevail under plain error, a defendant must show “clear or obvious” error that “affected substantial rights.”
  • Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194, 200–01 (2016): A misapplication of the Guidelines generally establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome unless the record shows otherwise.
• Confrontation Clause at Sentencing
  • United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 332 (5th Cir. 2007) and Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999): The Confrontation Clause does not apply to sentencing hearings.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in two phases:

1. Clear Error on Bodily Injury
   • The PSR and district court presumed injury because a firearm was discharged, but there was no evidence of a wound or medical treatment. Under Guerrero (169 F.3d at 946–47), the enhancement requires proof of actual harm; an empty shot is insufficient absent proof that injury “follows automatically.”
   • The court found the district court’s factual finding “clearly erroneous” when no victim testified to injury and no co‐defendant statements corroborated it.
2. No Plain-Error Prejudice
   • Brumfield showed a clear Guidelines miscalculation (two levels), but he could not show a “reasonable probability” of a lower sentence. The sentencing court expressly noted it had considered the §3553(a) factors and “would impose a sentence identical” even if the Guidelines range were incorrect.
   • Under Molina-Martinez, where the record “is silent” on alternative sentencing rationale, prejudice is presumed; here, the record was not silent because of the district court’s §3553(a) certification.

3. Impact

United States v. Brumfield clarifies two important sentencing principles:

• Proof of Bodily Injury: Sentencing courts must independently verify actual injury when applying USSG §2B3.1(b)(3)(A). A discharged but ineffective shot does not trigger the enhancement absent evidence of pain, marks, trauma, or medical attention.
• Plain-Error Prejudice Burden: Defendants challenging guidelines miscalculations face a high hurdle when the district court has articulated non-Guidelines justifications under §3553(a) and declared it would impose the same sentence regardless. In such cases, prejudice cannot be presumed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Clear Error” vs. “Plain Error” Review
  • Clear Error: The appellate court defers to a district court’s factual findings unless the record “clearly” contradicts them.
  • Plain Error: When a defendant raises a new argument on appeal, the mistake must be obvious and affect substantial rights, and the court may correct it only if it undermines the fairness or integrity of proceedings.
• “Bodily Injury” Enhancement (§2B3.1(b)(3)(A))
  • Requires “painful and obvious” injury or an injury for which medical attention would be sought. Mere discharge of a weapon with no impact is insufficient.
• §3553(a) Certification
  • If a district court checks the box in its Statement of Reasons indicating it would impose the same sentence even if Guidelines calculations were off, a defendant cannot later show prejudice from such miscalculations.

Conclusion

United States v. Brumfield delivers two key takeaways for practitioners and sentencing courts:

1. Before applying the §2B3.1(b)(3)(A) bodily‐injury enhancement, courts must ensure the record contains actual evidence of harm, not mere inferential assumptions from a discharge that caused no injury.
2. Under plain‐error review, a defendant cannot establish prejudice from a Guidelines miscalculation when the district court has explicitly declared it would have imposed the same sentence under §3553(a), thereby insulating the sentence from non‐prejudicial errors in the Guidelines computation.

This decision underscores the dual importance of precise fact‐finding at sentencing and thorough §3553(a) reasoning to guard against reversible error on appeal.