sentence” theory. See id. II. CONCLUSION It was plain error to enhance Moreno-Florean’s sentence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because no Fifth Circuit case has held that the generic, contemporary meaning of “kidnapping” requires proof of only two elements discussed in Gonzalez-Ramirez and does not require proof of any of the specified purposes of the MPC definition. Furthermore, this error affected Moreno-Florean’s substantial rights because the COV enhancement substantially increased his offense level under the guidelines, and there is a reasonable probability that he received a higher sentence than we would have received without the enhancement. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 365 (5th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 275 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we will exercise our
holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights holding that because the district courts error resulted in the imposition of a senfence substantially greater than the maximum otherwise permitted under the sentencing guidelines the error affected the defendants substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings holding that because the district courts error resulted in the imposition of a sentence substantially greater than the maximum otherwise permitted under the sentencing guidelines the error affected the defendants substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings holding that erroneous enhancement for prior drugtrafficking offense resulting in a substantially different sentence affected the fairness of judicial proceedings