context: Shi and Lin argue that these facts are insufficient evidence of permanent injury. We believe that the district court's application of the permanent bodily injury enhancement to these facts presents a predominantly factual issue, which we review for clear error.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 184 F.3d 685, 685
citation_a.parenthetical: applying de novo review to question whether welts fell within Guidelines' definition of bodily injury
citation_a.sentence: But see Pandiello, 184 F.3d at 685 (applying de novo review to question whether welts fell within Guidelines’ definition of bodily injury).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 149 F.3d 352, 353
citation_b.parenthetical: "severity of a victim's injuries is a factual determination and thus reviewed for clear error," construing permanent bodily injury
citation_b.sentence: See Gotti, 459 F.3d at 349 (citing United States v. Selioutsky, 409 F.3d 114, 118-19 (2d Cir.2005)); see also United States v. Baggett, 342 F.3d 536, 540 (6th Cir.2003) (reviewing finding of permanent or life-threatening bodily injury under clearly erroneous standard); United States v. Pandiello, 184 F.3d 682, 685 (7th Cir.1999) (conclusion that assailants inflicted bodily injury reviewed for clear error); United States v. Jacobs, 167 F.3d 792, 798 (3d Cir.1999) (findings regarding permanent or life threatening injury reviewed for clear error); United States v. Price, 149 F.3d 352, 353 (5th Cir.1998) (“severity of a victim’s injuries is a factual determination and thus reviewed for clear error,” construing permanent bodily injury).