Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): level of 12, under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(7), is based solely on his unlawful possession of firearms, with no weight being given to his trafficking of these, or any related, firearms. “The guideline applied by the court, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 ..., identifies possession alone as a crime.... Thus, the Sentencing Commission recognized that the guideline would be applied to crimes involving mere possession of an illegal weapon, regardless of the circumstances under which it was acquired.” United States v. Dalecke, 29 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir.1994). Freeman’s base offense level of 12 under § 2K2.1(a)(7) and his four-level enhancement for trafficking pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(5) are thus punishing entirely different aspects of his crime. See United States v. Wheeler, 330 F.3d 407, 414 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hayes, 399 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion (B) holding that although the guidelines are not mandatory when applied independently the district court still must adhere to the guidelines insofar as they incorporate the provisions of  3553f (C) holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines (D) holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him (E) holding that no impermissible double counting occurs where each of the guidelines applied by the district court  emphasizes different aspects of defendants conduct
Output (English): holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion