With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that erroneous enhancement for prior drugtrafficking offense resulting in a substantially different sentence affected the fairness of judicial proceedings
D: 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
C.