PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
            _________________

                  No. 22-1976
               _________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                        v.

           MICHAEL CARABALLO,
                               Appellant
             _________________

  On Appeal from the United States District Court
      for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
     (D.C. Criminal No. 3-17-cr-00277-001)
   District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
               _________________

   Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                 May 17, 2023

Before: SHWARTZ, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and
            ROTH, Circuit Judges.

            (Filed: December 8, 2023)
Gino A. Bartolai, Jr.
238 William Street
Pittston, PA 18640
    Counsel for Appellant

Gerard M. Karam
Robert J. O’Hara
Office of the United States Attorney
235 N Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 309, Suite 311
Scranton, PA 18503
   Counsel for Appellee
                       _____________

                OPINION OF THE COURT
                    _____________

MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.

       Michael Caraballo appeals his sentence for an
aggravated assault. Caraballo challenges the District Court’s
finding that the injuries sustained by Caraballo’s victim
amounted to serious bodily injury rather than bodily injury
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the
“Guidelines”). This finding resulted in a higher guideline
range for Caraballo, which Caraballo contends led to the
District Court erroneously imposing a lengthier sentence for
his role in the aggravated assault. Because the phrase serious
bodily injury as used in the relevant guideline is ambiguous,
we turn to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of the
phrase in the commentary to the Guidelines. And we hold that
the reasonableness, character, and context of the Sentencing
Commission’s interpretation entitles it to controlling weight.




                              2
Applying the commentary definition, we hold that the District
Court did not commit clear error by concluding that the
victim’s injuries constituted serious bodily injury rather than
bodily injury. Thus, we will affirm.

I.     BACKGROUND

       On February 6, 2017, Caraballo and his co-defendant,
both inmates at the United States Penitentiary at Canaan (“USP
Canaan”), assaulted a third inmate (“P.R.”) in the prison
gymnasium. Caraballo struck and attempted to strike P.R. with
a five-inch metal shank. After the assault, medical personnel
at USP Canaan assessed P.R. and transferred him to the
emergency room of a local hospital. P.R. stayed in the
emergency room overnight and was released the next day. He
suffered “a number of puncture wounds to his chest, forearm,
[and] triceps area,” a fractured mandible, and abrasions to his
forehead, upper jaw, and left knee.1

       In connection with the attack on P.R., on September 4,
2020, Caraballo pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous
weapon, aiding and abetting, and possessing contraband in
prison in violation of 

(a)(2)–(3) and 

(a)(2). After Caraballo entered his guilty plea, a U.S.
Probation Officer prepared a Presentence Investigation Report

1
 

. During the sentencing hearing, Caraballo’s counsel
referred to medical records in the case “disclosed during
discovery” that are not included in the record before us.
App. 56. The Government stated that P.R. also had trouble
breathing and speculated that this could be due to one of the
“three stab wounds, particularly, one to the chest, underarm
area, which probably caused the difficulty breathing.”
App. 58.




                              3
(the “Report”) for Caraballo. Using the Guidelines, the
Probation Officer calculated Caraballo’s total offense level as
20. The total offense level included a five-level sentencing
enhancement under Section 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) of the Guidelines
due