FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 12 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 00 26 -RH-WCS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL AA RON JOHNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 6, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi ch ael Aaro n J oh ns on ap pe al s h is 78 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e, im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s g ui lty

pl ea t o the ft o f fi rearm s fr om a fed eral li cen se e, invi ol at io n o f18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( u) , 92 4 (a )(1 ), an d 2 ; p os se ss io n o f st ol enfir earm s, i n v io la ti on

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2(

j), 92 4( a)(2 ), an d 2 ; an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 9 22 (g )(1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . The o ffen se in vo lv edth e b ur gl ary of

a pa wn s ho p, dur in g wh ic h J oh ns on an d h is co de fen da nt s st ol e se ve ral fir earm s. J oh ns on arg ue s o n app eal th atth e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ), fo r po ss es si onof afir earm “ inco nn ect io n wi th ” an ot he r fel on y , is ap pr op ria te on ly whe re the re i s p ro of th atth e fi rearm

faci li ta te d th e o th er fe lo ny. Thu s, h e arg ue s, the di stric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) in hi s ca se , bec au se th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th athi s po ss es si on of t he fir earm faci li ta te d ano th er o ffen se . Jo hn so n c on ced es inhi s res po ns iv e b rie f th atth e is su e h as be enres ol ve d b y anam en dm en t t o the Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w a di stric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n andin te rp ret at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s de no vo , andit s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rh in d , 28 9 F .3d 69 0, 6 93 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Subs ect io n 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) of th e Gui de li ne s s ta te s tha t “ [i]f th e d efen da ntus ed orpo ss es se d any firea rm

or a m m un it io n i n c on ne ct io n wi th an othe r fel on y off en se . . . inc reas e [the ba se off en se lev el by] 4 l ev el s . . . .” In Uni te d Sta tes v. Rh in d , we he ldth atth e p hr as e, “ inco nn ect io n wi th ,” do es no t re qu ire th atth e fi rearm 2faci li ta te th e und erl y in g o ffen se . Rhi nd , 28 9 F .3dat 6 95 . In o rd er t o re so lv e a

ci rcu itco nf

li ctpe rta in in g t o the ap pl ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ), sp eci fic al ly with re sp ectto th e u se of afir earm “ inco nn ect io n wi th ” a b ur gl ary of fen se , th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on pro m ul ga te d Am en dm en t 6 91 in20 06 , no ti ng th atth e ap pl ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) is warran te d i n the cas e o f a b ur gl ary

“be cau se of t he po te nt ia l tha t the pre se nc e o f th e fi rearm ha s fo r fac il it at in g an ot he r fel on y

off en se . . . .” U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en d. 6 91 . Sub se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) no w app li es “ ina cas e in whi cha de fen da nt , who du rin g the co ur se of a b ur gl ary, fin ds an d t ak es a fi rearm , eve n i f th e d efen da ntdi d n oten ga ge inan y ot he r co nduc t wi thth atfir earm du rin g the co ur se of t he bu rg lary .” U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1, co m

m en t. (n .14 (B)) . The en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s “ if t he fir earm or amm un it io n fa ci li ta te d, o r ha d the po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g, an ot he r fel on y of fen se . . . .” Id . at co m

m en t. (n .14 (A)). Fo r th e p ur po se s o f th is en ha nc em en t,

“ an ot he r fel on y

off en se ” is de fin edas “ an y

fed eral , st at e, orlo cal off en se , othe r th anth e . . . firea rm s p os se ss io n o r tr affi ck in g o ffen se . . . reg ard le ss of wh ethe r a cri m in al ch arg e was bro ug ht , or aco nv ic ti on ob ta in ed .” Id. at c omm en t. (n .14 (C)) . The U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) en ha nc em en t was co rrec tl y ap pl ie d i n thi s ca se , be cau se un de r Am en dm en t 6 91 , th e en ha nc em en t re qu ire d o nl y th atth e p res en ce 3of

th e fi rearm

ha d the po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g the bu rg lary . U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1, co m m en t. (n .14 (B)) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Jo hn so n’s t ot al sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

4