## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4081 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . J A S ON A . K RUMWI ED E , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:08- cr -00090-bb c- 1

—Barb ara B. C rab b, Chie f Judge
.
A RGUED O CTOBER28, 2009

— D ECIDED M AR CH 31, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MSa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. J aso n A
. Krum w i ede pl eaded g u i l t y t o c h a r g e s th a th e h a d s t o l e n th i r t y - f o u r fi r e a r ms f r o m a f e de r a l l y l i c e ns e d fi r e a r ms de a l e r, i n v i o l a t i o n of 18 U
. S
. C. § 9 22 ( u) , a nd tha t he ha d po ss es se d a fi rearm afterhavi ng be en c onvi cted o fa fel ony, i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1)
. M r. Krum w i ede was sent enced to 14 0 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t. H e no w appe al s hi s se nte n c e o n th e g ro u n d th at th e d i s t r i c t c ou rtim p ro p er ly2 N o. 08

- 4081 i ncl ud ed i n i ts Gu i del in es cal cul ati on the f our- l eve l enhancem ent pr ovi ded i n § 2K2.1 ( b) ( 6)
. W e co ncl ud e that th e d ist ric t c o u r t c om m itt ed n o e rro r b y a p p lyin g t h is enha n c em ent. A ccor dingl y, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o f th e d ist ric t c ou rt
.
I

B AC KGR OUND I n the ear l y mo r ningo fMar c h 9 , 2 0 0 8 , Mr
. Kr umwi e de bro ke i nto M ai n St re et Gu ns & K ni ves, a federa l l y l i censed fi r ea r m s de al eri n M edfo r d, W i sc o ns i n. Res po ndi ngt o the s i l e nta l a r m, the p o l i c e s o o n ar ri v e d. Mr
. Kr umwi e de i g no r ed th ei r o r d er to s to p, a nd he fl ed th e sc en e. The po l i ce l at er found hi m hi di ngi n a ne arbydumpst era nd a r r e s t e d h i m. T he p o l i c e r e c o v e r e d two g un s i n the du mpste r, fi ftee n gu n s in a bag by the doo r f ro m wh i ch M r . Kr um wi ede ha d e xi ted th e st o r e an d a ddi ti o na l g uns i n the sto re thathad bee n r em ove d fr om thei r case s. A t leas t o ne o fthe g uns was a s emi au to m at i c fi r earm capabl e o facc epti ng a l ar ge capaci ty m aga zi ne. On J une 4, 2 008, a g r an d j ur y r etur ne d a two- co unt i nd i ctm ent agai nst M r. K rum w i ede. H e was char ged with theft o fthi rty- f our fi re ar m s fro m a f edera l l y l i censed dea l er, i n v i o l at i o n of1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 22 ( u) , a nd wi thb eing a fel on i n posse ssi on of a firear m , i n vi ol ati on o f18 U. S
. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )
. OnS e pt e mbe r 15 , 2 0 0 8 , Mr
. Kr umwi e de enter ed a pl ea ofgui l ty t o both counts pu rs uant to a w ri tte n ple a a gr eem ent.N o. 08

- 4081 3

The PSR uti li zed the N ovem ber 2 0 0 8 v ers ion ofthe G uide- 1 lines. Th e P SR m ad e the f ollo w ing calcu lation s: B ase of f ense l evel : 22 pursuant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2.1(a)(3 ), because the off ense i n volved a s em iautom ati c fir earm c apa bl e ofac c ept i ng a l ar ge c apa c i t y m aga zi ne an d M r. Krum wie de h ad a l re ady be en c onvi c t ed o fa pri or vi ol en tfel ony; Six l e ve l e nha nc e me nt : p u rs u a n t to § 2 K 2 .1(b ) ( 1 )(c), b eca u se the o ffen se inv olv ed m or e tha n 2 5 firearm s; Tw o l e ve l e nha nc e me nt : p u rs u a n t to § 2 K 2 .1(b )(4)(a ), because the fir earm s involved i n t h e off ense w ere s t ol en ; R ed u c tio n to 2 9 lev els : p u rsu an t to § 2K 2.1(b)(4), b eca u se the §§ 2k2. 1( b )(1)- ( 4) enhancem ents cannot prod uce an of f ense l evel gre aterthan 29; F o url e ve l e nha nc e me nt : p u r s u a n t t o § 2 K2
. 1 ( b ) ( 6) an d A p p lication N ote 14(B ) b eca u se M r. K ru m w ied e p osse ss ed guns in connect ion w ith another fel ony offense ; and Threel eve l r educt i on : pursuant to § 3E1.1 f or acc eptance o f re sp o n sib ili ty an d co o p er a tio n . M r. K ru m w ied e’s crim ina l history categ or y w as V I. W ith a b ase of f ense l evel ofthir ty and cri m inal his tory c ategory ofV I, the G u id eline s ran g e w as 16 8 to 210 m on ths. OnNo v e mbe r 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nd uc t e d a s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ng . P r i o r t o the h e a r i ng, Mr
. Kr um wi e de fi l ed a wri tt eno bj ecti on to the s en te nc e ca l cul at i o n c o nta in ed in t h e p re -se n te n c e re p or t (“ P SR ”); sp ec i- 1 fi ca l l y, M r . Krumw i ede o bj ec te d to th e i nc l us i o n of the4 N o. 08

- 4081

Sectio n 2 K 2.1(b)(6) p ro v id es: 2 I fthe defen dantus ed or pos s es s ed a ny fi re ar m or am m uniti on in connect ion w ith another f el ony offense ; or pos s es s ed or t ra ns f er re d any fi re ar m or am m uni t i on w ith k no w led g e, i nte nt, or rea son to b elie v e tha t it w ould b e use d or poss es se d i n connect ion with another f el ony off en s e, i nc re as e by 4 l eve l s . I fthe r es ul t i ng of f ense l evel i s le ss than l evel 18, i ncreas e t o le vel 18. A p p lication N ote 14 re ad s, in relev an t pa rt, 3 14. “In Connecti on W ith”.

—

(A) In G en era l.

— Sub se ct ions ( b)( 6) and (c ) ( 1) a ppl y i fthe fi r e a r m o r a m m un i t i onf a c i l i t a t e d, or had the p o tent ial off aci li tat ing, another f el ony off en s e or anothe r off en s e, r es pec t i vel y. ( B) Ap plic ati on W hen O ther O ff ense i s Bu rglary or D rug O ff ense . — Subs ec t i ons ( b) ( 6) an d ( c ) ( 1) appl y [ ] i n a c ase i n whi c h a defen dant who, duri ng the c our s e ofa burg l ar y, fi nds an d t ake s a fi re ar m , e veni fthe d efen dantdi d not engage in any other condu ctw ith thatfir earm d u ring the co u rse of the b u rg lary

. . . . In th ese case s , appl i c at i on ofs ubs ec t i ons ( b) ( 6) an d ( c ) ( 1) i s warr an t ed be c aus e the pr es en c e of (co n tin u ed ...) § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) f our- l eve l enha n c em ent forposs ess i on o f 2 fi re ar m s i n connect i on with another fel ony offense because , he m ain ta i ned, no o therfel ony offense had been c o mmi t t e d

. R
. 3 0
. T h e Go v e r n me n t r e p l i e d th a t th e en hancem ent was appro pri ate ; i t r eli ed on Ap pli cati on N ote 14 ( B). The S entenc i ng Com m i ssi on had pro m ulg ate d

3N o. 08

- 4081 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 the fi re ar m ha s the pot en t i al off aci l i t at i ng

another fel ony offense or anothe r off ense , re s pec t i vel y. (C) D efinition s.

—

“ An o th e r f e l o n y o ff e n s e ” , f o r p u r p o s es of s ubs ec t i on ( b) ( 6) , m eans an y Fe der al, s t at e, or localo ffense , other than the ex plosi ve or fir ear m s pos s es s i on or t ra ffi c ki ng off en s e, puni s habl e by i m pri s onm en tf or a t er m e xc ee di ng one year, regardle ss ofw h ethe r a c ri m inal c ha r ge wa s br ou gh t, ora c on vi c t i ono bt a i ne d. U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2.1 app. n. 14. thi s a pp l i cati on not e in 200 6 t o re sol ve a ci rcui t s pli t o ver th e appl i ca ti o n o f § 2K2
. 1(b) ( 6) when a defen dan t’ s co nd uc t con stitut ed a n o th er fel ony offen se in the natu re of b u rg lar y or a d ru g off en se . See infra a t 11
. In ana dden

du m to the PSR, the Pro bati on Office r note d that M r. Krum w i ede’ s o bj ecti on was supporte d by U nit ed State s v. Sza kacs , 2 12 F .3d 34 4, 34 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) , wh i ch had determ i ned th at t he st ate o ffense ofco nspir acy to co m m i t bur g l ar y, c o m m i tt ed si m ul ta ne o us l y wi ththe c h a r g e d fe d e r a l o ffe n s e o fc o n s p i r a c y t o st e a l fi r e a r ms f r o m a fede r al l y l i ce ns ed dealer, di d no t qua l i fy a s “a nothe r f el ony off ense” f or p u rp ose s o fthe § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) en ha nc em en t. R
. 32 a t 2
. Th e Proba tion O fficer neverth ele ss co n c lu d ed th at A p p lica tio n N ot e 1 4(B ), pr om u lgated after Sza kacs , had re sol ved a c i rcui t co nfl i ct with re spect to the t er m “i n connect i on with” i n § 2 K 2.1 (b )( 6)6 N o. 08

- 4081

The di s t ri c t c ou rtc ons i der ed Mr. Krum wie de’ s ag e ( 27 ) , the 4 f ac t th a t h e wa s u n de r th e i n fl u e n c e o f a l c o h o l a t th e t i m e of the off en s e, hi s ac cept anc e ofr es pons ibi l i t y, hi s adm i s s i on thathe was anal c oho l i c an d t he uns ophi s ticated n atur e ofthe o ffen se . S ee Tr. at 16, N ov. 25, 2008. and that “ [ t] he Com m i ssi on det erm i ned the e nhancem ent w as w ar ra nted i n case s i nvol vi ng burgl ar y b ecause of the p oten tial a fi rearm has to facili tate an oth er off ense. ” R. 32 at 2. The dis tr i ct c ourtover rul ed M r. Krum w i ede’ s o bj ecti on and i ncl ud ed the § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) enhancem ent in i ts Gu i del i ne s c a l c ul a t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l a i ne d tha tAppl i ca ti o n Not e 14 ( B) m an dat ed th atthe f o ur - l ev ele nhancem ent b e incl ud ed w hen a defe nd ant t oo k fi re ar m s duri ng a bu rg l ar y, i n additi on t o the o therco nd uct u n d er lyin g t h e c h ar ge d offe n se . See T r. at6- 7, N ov. 25 , 2008
. A ccord ingly, the d istri ct cou rt a c c e p ted the P SR cal cul ati ons and determ i ned that th e G uidel i nes r ange w as 16 8 t o 2 10 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. Id. at 15. H ow ever, the di str i ct c ourtr eco gni zed m i ti gat i ng f acto rs a nd depar te d fr o m the r ecom m en ded Gui del i ne s r an g e. The 4 dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced M r. Krum w i ede to a ter m o f 14 0 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t ( 120 m onths o n c o unto ne an d 2 0 m on th s on co u n t 2 , to ru n co n se c u tiv ely ). Id. at19
. On D ecem ber2, 20 08, M r. Krum w i ede fi l ed a no ti ce of a p p ea l.N o. 08

- 4081 7 II DI S C US S I ON A. M r. Krum w i ede r enews his co nten tio n that the di str i ct cour t e rr oneo usl y incl ud ed the § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) f our- l eve l enhanc em en t i n i ts Gui del i ne s ca l cul at i o n. He mai nta i ns tha t the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byno t f o l l o wi ng Sza kacs , whi chhel d tha t a st at e o ffen se tha t o cc ur s co ntem pora neousl y with the convi cted federa l offe nse cann ot c ount a s “ anothe r fel ony offense” f orpurposes o f § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) unl ess the offense i s “ separ ate d i n ti m e o r by a dist in c ti on o fco nd uct. ” U nite d State s v. Sza kacs , 212 F. 3d 344, 35 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) ( i nter nal quotat i on mar k s o mi t t e d)

. He al s o ma i nt a i ns tha tthe 2 0 0 6 a men dm ent t o § 2 K 2. 1 ( the incl usi on o fA pp l i cati on N ote 14 ) did noti m pli cate the Sza kacs ru le. In h is v iew , “[w ]h ile the Am endm ent m ay h av e cl ar i fi ed w hen the o ther off ense i s aburg l ar y, the A m endm ent di d not chang e th is C ou rt ’s t re at m en t o f th e e n h an c em en t in th os e u n ique case s where t heoffen se of co n v iction i s the bu rglary ofa f ede ra l l y l i censed gun deal er . ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 12

- 13 ( e mpha s i s i n o r i g i na l )
. I n M r . Kr umwi e de ’ s v i e w, Appli cati on N ote 14 concerns the “i n connect i on with” phrase of§ 2K2.1 ( b) ( 6) , notthe “another fel ony offense” phrase

. The Gover nm ent conte nd s that Sza kacs has no r el evance to this cas e be cause A pp l i cati on N ote 14 “unequi voca l l y” dir ects di str i ct c ourt s t o apply the § 2K2. 1( b) ( 6) enhanceme n twh e n e v e r a d e fe n d a n tp o s s e s s e d fi r e a r ms d u r i ng th e co ur se o fa b ur g l ar y . Appel l ee ’ s Br
. 1 1. The Go ve r nm ent s ubm i ts that A pp l i cati on N ote 14( B) cre ate d a “per s e8 N o. 08

- 4081

r ul e r eg ar di ngb ur g l ar y ” an d “ al te r ed th e pr ev i o us ju d icia l co n st ru c tio n of th e e n h an c em en t’s ap p lica tio n in th ose circu its th at ha d exc lud ed bu rglary from cons iderati on a s ‘ anothe r offense. ’ ” Id. a t 18

- 19
. Addi ti o na l l y, the Gov ernm en t ar g ue s th atthe c o nduc t co ns i st i ngo fthe bu rglary

—bre aki ng and ente ri ng i nto the s tor e a t ni g ht

— was a n a ctdi sti nc t f r o m the the ft o fthe g uns an d M r. K ru m w ied e’s p os se ss ion of th em . Id. ( ci ting U nite d State s v. H il l , 563 F.3d 572 , 582 (7th C ir . 2009)). Fi nal l y, the Gover nm ent points o ut that, i n any eve nt, th e se nt en ce i m po se d was r ea so nabl e be ca us e i t “fel l e xa c t l y wi thin the 1 2 0

- 150 m on th r a ng e tha tKr umwi e de woul d ha ve f ac ed ha d the di st r i ctc o ur t no t a p p li ed th e f our- l eve l enhancem ent under § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6)
. ” Id. at 12, 25
.
B. W e r ev i ew d e no vo que st i o ns o fl aw i nv o l vingthe i n ter preta ti on o fthe Gu i del i nes. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. St i t m an , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d 9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 00 7)
. We r e v i e w a se nt en ci ngc o ur t’ s fi nd ings o ff ac t an d a ppl i ca ti o ns o fthe G u id elin es for c lea r er ro r. Id. W e begin ou r analysis w ith an exa m in ation of Sza kacs

. There, five defendants were convi cted o fthe federa l off ense ofco nspir acy to st ealfi re ar m s fro m a l i censed fi rearm s d ealer. Th e d efend an ts’ plan w as f oil ed before th ey reach ed the store an d , therefore, no firearm s w ere ac tu al l y t ak en . W he n s en ten ci ngthe de fen dan ts , theN o. 08

- 4081 9

W he n Uni t e d S t a t e s v . S z a kac s , 2 1 2 F .3d 34 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ), 5 w as decided , § 2K2.1(b)( 6) app eared i n the G uide lin es as § 2K 2. 1( b)( 5)
. Itw a s m o v ed to § 2K 2. 1( b)( 6) i n the 2006 G uidel i ne s , a tw hicht i m e App l i c a t i onNot e 1 4 ( B) wa s a l s o a dde d. S ee i nf ra at11
. The t ex t s o f § 2K 2.1( b) ( 5) , as i te xi s t ed pr i or to 2 00 6, and § 2K 2.1(b)(6), p ost-200 6, are id en tical. dist ri ct courtap pli ed the fo ur- l eve l § 2K2.1 ( b) ( 5) enhance- 5 m en t be cause “ th e defen dan ts us ed o r po ss es se d a ny fi r ea r m o r am m uni ti o n i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha no th erfel o ny o ff e n s e , th e o th e r fe l o n y o ffe n s e b e i n g th e s t a t e l a w c r i me ofconspir acy to co m m i t bur gl ar y. ” Sza kacs , 212 F. 3d at 348 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. W e he l d tha t th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a d e r r e d b y a p p l y i n gth e e n h a n c e me n t
. We f ound the cas e “ diffi cul t .
. . [ because ] the sta te l aw o ffense an d th e fe d er al off en se w er e e ss en tia lly th e s am e c rim e.” Id. at34 9. W e a l so re cogni zed thatci rcui ts had divi ded ove r w hetherthe enhancem ent s houl d app l y in such ci rcum sta nces. Id. W e no te d i n Sz a k a cs th at, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ar m s t e ad, 11 4 F. 3d 504, 51 1- 13 ( 5th Ci r. 19 97) , the Fi fth Ci rcui t had rul ed that the e nhancem ent was appro pri ate l y a pp l i ed w hen the defe nd ants w er e convi cted of the federa l o ffense ofst eal i ng fi re ar m s fro m a l i censed deal erand the othe r o ff en se was the s ta te c r i m e o fb ur g l ar y . I n Sza kacs , we c o nt r a s t e d A rm s t e ad w ith th e Six th C irc u it’s ap p ro ac h in U nited Sta tes v. Sa nd ers , 162 F.3d 396 , 399-402 (6thCir. 19 98 )
. I n Sa nd ers , the S i xth Ci rcu itha d he l d tha t, whena d efend an t w as ch arged w ith th e federa l crim es o f th eft f r o m a l i ce ns ed g un de al er, kno wing l y t r an spo r ting sto l en fi re ar m s an d being a fel on i n posse ssi on, the sta te10 N o. 08

- 4081

In 2000, A pp li cat ion N ote 18 read i n perti nent part, “ ‘ another 6 f el ony offense ’ and ‘ another off ense ’ refer t o of f ense s other than explos ives or fir earm s p o ss es si on or tr affic king of f ense s. ” U.S. S en te n ci n g G u id el in es M a n u a l § 2 K 2 .1 a p p . n. 1 8 (20 0 0 ). Bu il ding on the S an ders i nter pretat ion, w e i nter preted that l ang uage so as to ex c l ude bur gl ar i es fro m the defi ni t i on of “anot he r fe l on y off e ns e ” be c a us e App l i c a t i onNot e 1 8 us ed the ge ne ra l phr as eo l ogy of“e xpl osi ves or fi re ar m s pos s es s i on or traffick ing offen ses, ” ra the r tha n in v ok ing “ sp e cific statutory prov is ions
. ” Szaka cs , 212 F. 3d at 350. l aw cr i m e o fco nspir acy to com m i t bur gl ar y di d not qua l i fy a s “ a n o th e r fe l o n y o ffe n s e . ” I n th e e n d , we ag r ee d wi th Sa nd ers that , “ since al m ostal l federa l cr i m es can al so be chara cter i zed as state cr i m es, ” al l owing a st ate l aw o ff ense “bas ed on th e ex act sam e o ffense conduct to cou nt as ‘anoth er fel ony offen se’ rend ers ‘the w ord “a no th er ”
. . . sup er fl uo us , a nd o fno s i g ni fi ca nc e to the ap p lica tio n of [th e e n h an c em en t].’ ” Szak acs , 21 2 F
. 3d at 35 0 (q uoti ng Sa nd ers , 16 2 F
. 3d at 400)
. W e a l so note d that Sa nd ers i n te rp re ted the then- extant A pp l i cati on N ote 1 8 t o § 2 K 2
. 1 ( b ) ( 5 ) a s p r e c l u d i n ga s t a t e b u r g l a r y c r i me fro m qu alify in g a s “ an ot h er felon y off en se .” Id. F i n a l l y, we 6 ag r ee d wi th Sa nd ers that “ cour ts shoul d not a dj ust a se n te n c e u p w ar d b a s e d on fac to rs alre ad y re flec te d in the b ase - off ense l eve l, ” i.e. , “ d o u b l e c o u n t i n g ” th e s a me co nd uc ta l r e a dy i nc l ud e d in a b a s e o ffe ns e l e v e l c a l c ula

tio n . Id. at 350-51. W e con clud ed that the Six th Circu it’ s approach w as consi ste n t w i th o ur o w n previ ous a pp l i catio n of § 2K 2.1( b)(5) in situation s w he re “the re w as ‘a fi nd i ng of a separ ati on of ti m e between the o ffenseN o. 08

- 4081 11

By the n, Appli c at i on N ot e 18 ha d bee n m ove d t o Appl i c at i on 7 N o te 15
. S ee U .S . S en ten cin g G u idelin es M an u al, S u p p lem en t to A ppendix C , 94 (20 0 5 ) (A m en d m en t 6 6 9 ). ofco nvi cti on a nd the othe r fel ony offense, o r a di sti ncti on o fc o n d u c t b e t we e n th a t o c c u r r i n g i n th e o ffe n s e o fc o nv i c t i o n a nd the o the r fe l o nyo ffe ns e . ’ ” Id. a t 35 1 ( quo ting Sa nd ers , 162 F. 3d at 400)
. W e thus ado p te d th e Sa nd ers approach and “rej ect[ ed ] the approach re prese nted by the Armst e ad cour t. ” Id. I n 200 6, the Se ntencing C om m i ssi on pro m ulg ate d Am e nd men t6 9 1 , w hi c h mod i fi e d § 2 K2
. 1 a nd i t s Appli cati on N ote s. See U
. S. Sente ncing Guideli nes M anua l, Sup pl e m e ntt o Appe ndix C, 1 70

- 77( 20 06 ) ( Am en dm en t 691)
. The A m endm ent r e- desi gn at ed § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 5) as § 2 K 2.1 (b )(6) , i d. at17 1, st ru c k A p p lica tio n N ot e 1 8, i d. at 17 2, an d ad d ed th e n ew A p p lica tio n N ot e 1 4, i d. at174-

7 7 5
. T he S e nt e nc i ngCo mm i s s i o n a l s o s t a t e d, [ T]he am endm ent add re sse s a ci rcui t confl i ct p er ta in in g to t h e ap p lica tio n o f [§ 2K 2.1 (b )(6) ] .
. . , sp ec ifica lly w ith res p ec t t o t h e u se of a fire ar m “in c on n e c t ion w ith ” b u rg lar y a n d d ru g off en se s. . . . [T]he am en d m en t prov ides that i n bu rglary of

f en se s, [ § 2K2
. 1(b) ( 6) ] appl [ i es ] t o a de fen dan t who tak es a fi re ar m du ri ng the cour se of the bu rgl ar y, eve n i fthe defe nd ant di d not e ngage in any othe r co nduc t wi ththa t fi r ea r m dur i ngthe c o ur se o fthe burgl ar y. . . . The Com m i ssi on dete rm i ned th at ap p lica tio n of [§ 2 K 2.1 (b )(6) ] is w a rra n te d in these cas es b ec ause ofthe potenti althatthe pres-12 N o. 08

- 4081

S ee als o Sti n son v . U n i te d S tat es , 5 0 8 U. S
. 3 6 , 3 8 ( 1993) 8 ( “[ C] om m en t ar y i n the Guide l i ne s M anu al thati nt er pre t s or ex pl ai ns a gui del i ne is auth or i t at i ve unl es s i tvi ol at es the Cons t i t ut i on or a f ede ra l s t atut e, or i s i nc onsi stentwith, or a p la in ly er ro n eo u s re a d in g o f, th a t g u id el in e.” ). ence ofthe fi re ar m has f orf aci l i tat i ng ano ther f el ony off ense orano thero ffense. Id. at17 7. Lat er, i n U nite d State s v. H il l , 563 F.3d 572 , 581 (7th C ir. 2009 ) , we consi dered wh etherA pp l i cati on N ote 14 was i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe l an g ua g e o f§ 2 K2. 1(b) ( 6)
. The 8 defen dan t i n H il l di sputed the a pp l i cati on o f§ 2K2.1 ( b) ( 6) an d the d istric t cou rt’s conc lusion th at a bu rglary qual i fi e d a s a no the r fe l o ny o ffe ns e whe n he ha d t ake n guns duri ng the burg l ar y a nd had ple aded gui l ty to a f el on i n posse ssi on count. W e concl ud ed th at A pp l i cati on N ote 14( B) w as consi ste nt with § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) , and that the guidel i ne in d eed appli ed i n the defe nd ant’ s ca se b e c au se “th e r e l e v a n tqu e s t i o n i s n o twh e th e r th e t wo off enses o ccur si m ult aneousl y o r have som e ca usalr el ati onshi p w i th o ne ano ther, but w hethertheyar e ba sed o n the s am e co nd uct. ” H il l , 563 F. 3d at 581 ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. Pur i f oy, 32 6 F
. 3d 879, 88 0- 81 ( 7th C ir. 2003) )
. W e r easo ne d tha t, unl i k e th e defen dan ts i n Sza kacs , the ap p li cati o n o fthe § 2 K2. 1(b) ( 6) enhan ce m en t i n H il l “was bas ed on c on d u c t th at w as d ist in c t from [th e d efe n d an t’s ] sim p le posse ssi on o fthe fi re ar m s, nam el y the bur gl ar y. ” Id. M r. K rum w i ede contends that H il l “re affir m s [o u r] b as ic ho l di ngi n Sz a k a cs that, wh er e the off ense ofco nvi cti onN o. 08

- 4081 13

an d the ‘oth er’ offen se for th e en ha nc em en t’s pu rp oses are es se n tia lly th e s am e c rim e b ec au se th ey inv olv ed n ea rly i den ti ca l o ff en se conduct, the f o url ev ele nha nc ement does not apply. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 14 ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). The Gover nm ent conte nd s j ust the o pp osi te
. I t po i nt s o ut th at, i n H il l, we c i t e d Armst e ad a nd s a i d, The gui del i ne [ § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) ] by i ts ter m s r equi re s on ly that the defendant have posse sse d a weapon

‘ in c o nn e c t i on with’ anothe r offense. That l anguage i s s uffi ci entl y b ro ad t o i ncl ud e pos ses si ng a w eapon a s a r esul t o fthe b u rg lar y . . . and thus t o acco m m o dat e th e i nt er pr et at i o n r efl ec te d i n the com m entar y. H il l , 56 3 F
. 3d at 58 2. The Gov ernm en t be l i ev es tha t, i n H il l , we ab a nd o ne d Sza kacs a nd a do pt e d the A rm s t e ad a pp ro ac h

. See A pp el l ee’ s Br. 19

- 20. W e bel i ev e th atthe r es o l ut i o n o fthe se c o nfl i ct i ng p ositi ons i s straightforw ard

. A p p li cation N o te 14(B ), not Sza kacs , gov er n s the appli cati on o f§ 2K2.1 ( b) ( 6) in M r. K ru m w ied e’s ca se ; A p p lica tio n N ot e 1 4 (B ) is une q ui vocal abo utwhenthe § 2 K2. 1(b) ( 6) e nha nc ement shoul d app l y: w h en a defendant “duri ng the co urse o fa b ur g l ar y, fi nds and ta k es a f i r ea r m , ev eni fthe de fen dant did notenga ge i n any ot h er c on du ct with that fi re ar m . ” U.S
. S. G. § 2 K 2. 1 a pp . n. 14 ( B). A s we al re ady have hel d, th e Ap pli cati on N ote i s co nsi ste nt with the guidelin e its elf an d t h u s is a u th or ita tiv e. SeeH il l , 56 3 F
. 3d at 581 ( ci ti ng Stin son v. U nited Sta tes , 508 U
. S. 36, 3 8 (1 9 9 3)). A pp l i cati on N ote 14 was m eant to “r em edy the di sag re em en t amongthe c o ur ts r eg ar di ngthe a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe14 N o. 08

- 4081 f our- l eve l enhancem ent t o case s in wh i ch the othe r offen se is a bu rglary

. ” See U nite d State s v . M orris , 56 2 F
. 3d 1131 , 11 36 ( 10th Cir
. 2009) ( al so concl ud i ng tha t Ap pli cati on N ote 14 ( B) i s co nsi ste nt with § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6) and that the e nhance m en t appli ed i n a fel on i n posse ssi on ca se w here the defe nd ant t oo k fi re ar m s duri ng the co urse o f a bu rglary)

. This strai ghtf or w ar d rel i ance o n the pla i n l anguage o f A p p li cation N ot e 14 rend ers nu gatory M r. K rum w iede’s c on te n tio n th at A p p l ica tio n N ot e 1 4 c on c er n ed th e “ in connect i on w i th” phrase of § 2K2.1 ( b) ( 6) , not the “ anothe r felo n y off en se ” p h r a s e. A p p lica tio n N ot e 1 4(B ) is sp ec ifically titl e d “ A p p li cation W he n O th er Offens e is B urglary o r D r ugOff en se ” an d di sc us se s th e appl i ca ti o n o fthe enhancem ent when ei therburg l ar y o r a d rug offense const i tutes the pu rpor ted “other” fel ony offense. N otabl y, A pp l i cati on N ote 14 ( C) p ro vid es a defi ni ti on o f“a nother f el ony off ense, ” when the purpor ted o therfel ony offense i s n ot burgl ar y o r a drug offense. I n shor t, A pp l i cati on N o te 1 4 i s squa r el y o n po i nti n thi s ca se , a nd the dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectl y a pp l i ed the enhancem ent.
Conclusi on The di st r i ctc o ur t co rrect l y a ppl i ed th e enha nc ement provi ded by § 2K 2.1( b) ( 6) in the cal cul ati on o f M r. Krum w i ede’ s Guide l i nes c al cul ati on. A ccor dingl y, the j ud g men to fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

3- 31- 10