F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v

.

Y O A H J A N L A R A F L O R E S , Defendant-Appellant

. N o. 11-50536

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04083- W QH-1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v

.

A L F R E D O R U B I O L A R

A , Defendant-Appellant

. N o. 11-50539

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04083- W QH-3

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v

.

A R T U R O L A R A , Defendant-Appellant

. N o. 11-50555

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04083- W QH-2

OPI NI ONU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 2

A ppeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California W illiam Q. Hay es, District J udg e, Presiding

Arg ued and Submitted March 7, 2013—Pasadena, California

F iled Aug ust 30, 2013

B efore: Richard A. Paez and Paul J . W atford, Circuit J udg es, and L eslie E. Kobay ashi, District J udg e. *

Opinion by J udg e Paez

SUMMARY * *

Crim inal Law

Vacating sentences a

nd remanding for resentencing for conspiracy to p ossess an u nreg istered firearm, the panel h eld that the definition of a missile u nder 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) a nd U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) is a sel f

- p r o p elled device desig n ed to deliver an ex plosive.

The panel concluded that because th e 4 0 -mm cartridg e s in this case do not qualify as missiles, the district court erred

* T h e Ho n orab l e L eslie E. Ko b ay ash i, District Ju d g e f o r th e U.S. District Co u rt f o r th e District o f

Haw aii, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 3

in enhancing the defendants’ o ffense levels pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A).

COUNSEL

Ricardo M. Gonz alez
, San Dieg o, California, for D efendantAppellant Alfredo L ara.

B arbara M. D onovan, Donovan & Donovan, San Dieg o, California, for Defendant-Appellant Arturo L ara.

F rederick Ca r r oll (arg

ued), San Dieg o, California, for Defendant-Appellant Yoahjan F lores.

Doug las Keehn (arg

ued), Assistant United States Attorney
, San Dieg o, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee United States o f America.

OP INION

PAEZ , Circuit J udg e:

I n these consoli d a ted cases, the defendants appeal their
sentences following their pleas of g uilty to conspiracy to poss e s s a n u nreg istered f irearm in violation of 1 8 U .S.C. § 371 and 2 6 U.S.C. § 5861(d). They raise a novel question: W h a t is the definition o f a missile under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)? W e adopt the

common meaning of t h e word missile, in the contex t o f modern weaponry , and hold that the definition o f a missile, under the sente n c i n g g uidelines, is a self-propelled deviceU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 4

desig ned to deliver a

n ex plosive. 1 B ecause the 40-mm cartridg es in this case d o not qualify as missiles, t h e district
court erred in concluding otherwise and in enha ncing the defendants’ base offense level b y f ifteen levels. W e therefore

v a c ate the defendants’ sentences a n d r e m a n d f o r resentencing

.

B ACKGROUND

Defendants Arturo L a

r a, Alfredo L ara, and Yoahjan L a ra F lores, after entering into a plea a g reement with the g overnment, pled g uilty to conspiracy to possess an unreg istered firearm i n v i olation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 a nd 26 U.S.C. § 5 8 6 1 ( d ). The charg es were based on the following events.

On September 2, 2010, the defendants ente r e d The G un Shop in El Centro seeking to purchase a grenade launcher. The store owner provided them with the card of an individual who he said mig ht be able to help them. The card was that o f

a Bu reau of Alcohol, T obacco, and F irearms (ATF ) ag e n t , which was g iven to The Gun Shop after the ag ent received a tip that individuals mig h t visit the store inquiring about illeg al
weapons. After a series of n eg o tiations by phone and in
person with undercover ATF ag ents, the defendants ag reed to meet the ag ents and purchase a Colt M203 g r enade launcher and three 40-mm g old-tipped h ig h ex plosive dual purpose cartridg es (ammunition for the launcher). F lores a nd Arturo L ara met the ag ents in a park i n g lot on September 29, 2010

1 T h e co m p lete d ef in itio n o f a m issile u n d er U .S.S.G. § 2 K2 .1 (b )(3 )(A )

an d 2 6 U.S.C. § 5 8 4 5 (f

) m ay also in clu d e a g u i d an ce sy stem req u irem en t. B ecau se w e can reso lv e t h ese cases w ith o u t ad d ressin g th is issu e, w e leav e it f o r an o th er d ay

.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 5

and ex chang ed one Colt M203 gr enade launcher and three inert 40-mm ca r tridg es for $1,900. The defendants were arrested and indicted.

B e fore the c ourt sent enced the defendants, the g overnment filed a motio n f o r a fifteen-level upward adjustment for all three d e fendants, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A), which provides for a fifteen

- l e v el enhancement if the offense i n volved a missile, rocket, o r device for launching either of those projectiles. Specifically
, the g o vernment arg u ed that the M203 g renade launcher defendants purchased is a “ device for use in launching a

. . . missile” because the 40-mm cartridg es it launches are missiles. Therefore, althoug h the enhancement was a pplied based on the launcher, the dispositive question is whether the cartridg es are m i ssiles. I f they are, the M203 launcher is a device for launching missiles. I f they are not, the M203 is not

a device f

or launching missiles. The plea agreements specifically allowed the defendants to a p p e a l the district court’s ruling reg arding the applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A).

The facts r e ga r d ing the characteristics of the M203 g renade launcher and 40-mm cartridg e s are undisputed. The M203 g renade l a u ncher is c a pable of launching many different ty

pes of cartridg e s with different purposes. There

are smoke rounds, g round marker roun d s , illumination rounds, an d ga s riot control rounds. The cartridg es in this
case, w hich the g overnment claims are missiles, a r e 40-mm hig h ex plosiv e d ual purpose (HEDP) cartridg es. They a re desig ned to contain between 1

. 2 and 1.5 ounces of military g rade ex p losive. These cartridg es are described by the army ammunition data sheets as r o u n d s “desig ned to penetrate at least two inches of steel armor at 0 a ng le of obliquity a

nd inflict personnel casualties in the targ et area.” The cartridg e sU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 6

are armed by the force of the p r o p u l sion when they a re launched out of the M203; they “ m u s t m aintain 37,000 revolutions before it’s armed at about 18 meters.” A t that point, they ex plode upon imp a c t

. This makes the cartridg e s slig htly different than hand g renades, which ex p lode a c ertain number of seconds after they are a ctivated reg ardles s o f the force at which they

are thrown.

According to the Army F ield Manual, the max imum rang e of the M203 launcher is 400 meters, althoug h the

max imum effective r ang e is between 1 5 0 and 350 meters depending upon the ty

pe o f targ et. Thus, it h a s a gr e ater rang e than hand-tossed g r enades, w hich ty pically can only be thrown between thirty -five and forty meters. A g overnment

ex p ert testified that the M203 was desig ned to help bridg e the g ap between the rang e o f hand g renades and the long -distance rang e of 60-mm mortars.

Most importantly for p urposes of this opinion, the cartridg es are “fix e d round[ s] of ammunition,” which means that th e p ropulsion power of the cartridg e is entirely

ex p ended w hen the launcher is fired. The cartridg e case stay s behind, similar to o ther ty pes of small arms ammunition like ordinary bullets. I n o t h e r words, the c artridg es are n ot selfpropelled. They a lso do not contain any ty p e o f internal g uidance sy stem.

The d istrict court heard the testimony o f qualified g overnment an d d efense ex perts on the characteristics o f missiles, the Colt M203 g r enade launcher, an d its accompany

ing c a r t r i d ge s

. T h e c o u r t gr anted the g overnment’s m otion to apply the fifteen-level upward adjustment a

nd sentenced each defendant to the statutoryU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 7

max imum sentence of six ty months imprisonment. The defendants timely

appealed.

STANDARD OF REVI EW

A district court’s leg a l interpretation of the g uide l ines is reviewed de n o vo. United S tates v. Guerrero
, 333 F .3d 1078, 1080 ( 9th Cir. 2003). F actual finding s a re reviewed for clear

error. Unite d S t a t es v. Riley
, 335 F .3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). T he facts reg arding the characteristics of the weapons involved are undisputed. Therefore, the only q uestions on appeal are what is the definition of a m i s s ile under § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and whether the 40-mm cartridg e s meet that definition. Those are questions o f l a w that w e review de

novo.

ANAL YSI S

Under § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) of the Sentencing Guidel i nes, a fifteen-level enhancement applies if the o ffense involved “a destructive device that is a portable rocket, a missile, or a device for use in launching a portable rocket or a missile.” I f the o ffense involves any other “ d es tructive device,” a twolevel enhancement applies. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B ). B oth parties ag ree that the 40-mm cartridg es and M203 launcher qual i f y a s “destructive devices” under § 2K2.1(b)(3) but disag re e a s to whether the c artridg es qualify as “missiles,” and thus whether the M203 launcher qualifies as a “device for use in launching a . . . missile.”

Application n ote seven t o § 2K2.1 makes clear that the
term “destructive device” in § 2 K 2.1(b)(3) refers to a “destructive device” a s defined in the National F irearms Act.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 8

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.7. The National F irearms A ct defines a “destructive device” as:

(1) any ex plosive, inc e n d i ary , or poison g a s (A) b omb, (B ) g renade, (C) rocket having a propellent charg e of more th a n f our ounces, (D) missile having an ex plosive o r incendiary charg e of mo r e t han o ne-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F ) similar device; (2) any ty pe o f
weapon by whatever name k nown which will,

or which may be readily c onverted to, ex pel a projectile by the action of an ex plosive o r other p ropellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more t h a n one-half inch in diameter, ex cept a shotg un or s hotg un shell which the Se c retary finds is g enerally

r e c og n iz e d as particularly suitable for sport i n g purposes; and (3) any c ombin a t i o n of p a rts either desig n ed o r intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparag raphs (1) and (2) and from which a d estructi v e device may be readily assembled.

26 U.S.C. § 5 845(f). The foreg oing definition of destructive device in the statute teaches us that in o r d e r to b e a “destructive device that is a

. . . missile” under § 2K2.1(b)(3), the device, in addition to having the qualities of a m i s sile,
must also have more than o ne-quarter ounce of ex plosive o r incendiary c harg e. § 5845(f) ( defining a destructiv e d e vice
as, inter alia, a “missile having an ex plosive o r incendiary charg e of more than one-quarter ounce”). This fact
, w i th

r espect to the cartridg es, is also undisputed. B ut unfortunately
, the statute provides no definition of “ missile.”U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 9

W e thus turn to t h e traditional rules of statutory interpretation. 2 “The interpretation of a statuto ry provision

m u s t beg in with the plain meaning of its lang uag e.” In r e Bonner Mall P artnership
, 2 F. 3 d 899, 908 (9th Cir. 1993). Therefore, unless defined, words in a statute “will be interpreted as taking their ordinary
, contemporary , c o m m on meaning .” Miranda v. Anchondo
, 6 84 F .3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2012). I n d etermining the “ p lain meaning ” of a word, we may consult dictionary definitions, which we trust to capture the common contemporary understanding s of the word. See Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC v. 17.19 Acres of Prop. Located in Maricop a Cnty.
, 627 F .3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 2010).

Dictionaries g enerally p rovide two separate definitions o f missile: one broad and g eneric definition including all thing s thrown as weapons and one definition t hat alig ns w ith our modern usag e of the term missile to describe a sophisticated piece of weaponry

. See, e.g. , United States v. Helmy
, 951 F .2d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 1991) (concluding that “missiles fall within any common sense definition o f ‘sophisticated weaponry ’”). F or ex ample, the Ox f ord Dictionary defines a missile as: (1) “an object which is f orcibly p ropelled at a targ e t, either by hand o r f r o m a m e c hanical w eapon,” or (2) “a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote c ontrol, carry ing conventional or nuclear ex plosive.” Missile
, Ox ford Diction a r i e s P ro , h t t p : / / e n gl i s h

. o x f o r d d i c t ionaries.com/ definition/missile (last visited J uly 29, 2013).

2 W e a p p l y t h e trad itio n al ru les o f statu to ry co n stru ctio n w h en in terp retin g th e sen ten cin g g u i d e l i n es. Un ited Sta tes v. Go n za lez
, 2 6 2 F.3 d 8 6 7 , 8 69 (9 th

Cir. 2 0 0 1 ).U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 10

The g eneric definiti o n o f “ a n object propelled

. . . as a weapon at a targ et” could include a n y object

— a pencil, a stone, o r a c oin—so long as it i s t h rown as a w eapon. This definition of missile is clearly inappropriate in the contex t o f the National F irearms Act’s classification of “destru ctive devices.” See Paul Revere I ns. G roup v. United States
, 500 F .3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2007) (“I t is

. . . a fundamental

canon that the w ords of a statute must be read in their c ontex t and with a view to their place in the overall s t a t u tory scheme.” (internal q

uotation marks omitted)). T he categ ory of “destructive device” under the National F irearms Act “was intended to cover the military -t y pe weapons—mines, g renades, bombs, and larg e-caliber weapons, such a s baz o o kas, mortars, and anti-tank g uns.” United States v

. Posnjak
, 457 F

. 2 d 1 1 1 0
, 1115 (2d Cir. 1972). The term missile appears in the statute a long side o ther modern military
weapons such as bombs, g renades, rockets, and mines. 26 U.S.C. § 5 845(f). Apply ing the well-established doctrine of noscitur a sociis—the principle that “a w o r d is known b y the company it k eeps”—we conclude that the d e f inition o f missile in the statute should be the modern military definition rather than the o verbroad g eneric definition. Gustafson v

. Alloyd Co., Inc
, 5 13 U.S. 561, 575 (1995) (“This rule we rely
upon to avoid ascribing to o ne word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with i ts accompany ing words, thus g iving unintended breadth to the Acts o f Cong ress.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Modern military definitions of a missi l e focus on two character istics: self-propulsion and a g uidance sy stem. A s discus s ed a

bove, the Ox f

ord Dictionary defines a missile a s “a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote c ontrol, carry ing conventional or nuclear ex plosive.” Missile
, Ox ford Diction a r i e s Pro, supra

. Similarly
, the Ox ford Eng lishU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 11

Dictionary d efines a missile as “a long -distance weapon that is self-propelled, and directed e i t her b y remote control o r automatically
, during part o r a ll of its course.” Missile
, Ox ford Eng lish Dictionary
, http://www.oed.com/view/ Entry /119992? redirectedF r om=missile#eid (last visited J uly 29, 2013). 3

I nternational law d efinitions o f the term “ missile” a re similar to those discussed a b ove. The U nited Nat i o n s 2002 Report on “The I ssue o f Missiles in All I ts Aspects” defines

a missile as “an u nmanned, self-propelled, self -contained, unrecallable, g uided or ung uided v ehicle desig ned to deliver

a weapon or other pay load.” U.N. Secretary -Gener a l, The issue of m issiles in all its a s p ec t s , ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. A/57/22 9 ( J u l y 2 3
, 2 0 0 2 )

. H a r vard University ’s Humanitarian Policy a

nd Conflict Re search Prog ram’s “Manual on I nternational L aw Applicable to Air and Missile W a r fare” defines a missile as a “self-propelled unmanned weapon[ ] —launched from aircraft, warships or land-based launchers—that [is] e ither g uided or balli s t i c

. ” Prog ram on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict R esearch at Harvard

3 B o th th e Merriam

- W eb ster an d th e A m erican H eritag e d i ctio n aries also f o cu s o n self

- p ro p u lsio n an d/o r g u id an ce. T h ey b o th d ef in e m issile, in th e

m o d ern m ilitary u sag e, as eith er a “ g u id ed m i ssile” o r a “ b allistic m issile.” M i s s i l e , M e r r i a m

- W e b s t e r , h t t p : / / w w w

. m e r r i a m

- w e b s t e r

. c o m / d ictio n ary

/m issile (las t v isited J u l y 2 9, 2 01 3 ); Missile
, T h e A m erican H e r i t a g e D i c t i o n a r y , h t t p : / / w w w

. a h d i c t i o n a r y

. c o m / w o r d / search .h tm l? q =m issile (last v isited J u ly 2 9
, 2 0 13 ). A g u id ed m issile is d ef in ed as a “ self

- p ro p elled m issile th at can b e g u id ed w h ile it is i n f

lig h t”

an d a b allistic m issile is d ef i n ed as a “ p ro

j ectile th at assu

m es a f ree- f allin g traj ecto r y af

ter an in tern ally g u id ed
, self

- p o w ered ascen t.” Gu i ded Missile
, T h e A m erican H eritag e Dictio n a r y , h t t p : / / w w w

. a h d i c t i o n a r y

. c o m /

w o rd / search .h tm l? q =g u id ed +m issile (last v isited J u ly 2 9, 20 1 3 ); Ba llistic Missile
, T h e A m er i c a

n H e r i t a g e D i c t i o n a

r y , h t t p : / /w w w .ah d ictio n ary .co m

/

w o rd / search .h tm l? q =b allistic+m issile (last v isited J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 1 3 ).U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 12

University
, Manual o n I nternational L aw Applicable to Air

a n d M i s s i l e W a r f

a r e , 5

– 6 ( 2 0 0 9 )
, a v a i l a b l e a t http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCRManual.pdf. I n sum, every modern military definit i o n of missile we have encountered includes a self-propulsi on r equirement. Many definitions also sug g est that missiles have g uidance sy s t ems. W e therefore h old that the d efinition of a missile, under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 5 845(f), is a self-propelled device desig ned to deliver an e x p l o s i ve. We leave the question of whether the definition of a missile under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) should also include a g uidance requirement for another day

.

The definition of a missile as a s e l f- p r opelled device is supported by the reason g iv e n for the amendment to § 2K2.1(b), w hich created the fifteen-level enhancement for missiles and rockets, in A ppendix C to the g uide l i n e s

. See United States v. Laney
, 189 F .3d 954, 9 5 9 ( 9 t h Cir. 1 999) (“Ultimately
, the g oal [ of interpreting the Guidelines] is to ascertain the intent of the drafters.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The “Reason f or A mendment” cites man-portable air defense sy stems ( MANPADS ) as a prime ex ample of a weapon covered b y § 2 K 2.1(b)(3)(A). U

. S

. S.G. App. C, Amend. 669 (“This amendment increases that enhancement
to 15 levels if the destructive d evice was a man-portable air defense sy stem (MANPADS), portable rocket, missile, o r device used for launching a p or t a b l e rocket or missile.”). MANPADS a

r e shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (also known as SAMs), which a re undisputedly s e lf-propelled devices with v arious ty

pes of g uidance sy stems. The ty pes o f
weapons the C ommission intended to include in the amendment should be read in lig ht of this ex ample. See id. (referring to “MANPADS and similar weapons” a ndU N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 13

“MANPADS or similar destructive device[ s] ” as the devices covered by

the amendment).

T h e record also supports o u r conclusion that the 4 0

- m m

c a r tridg es are not “missiles” as we have defined the t e r m

. The record clearly indi c a t e s , and the parties do not dispute, that the cartridg es are not self-propelled. Rather, the ig nition of the propellan t f

o r c e s the munition from the launcher a nd the projectile travels under its own inertia.

B o th the g overnment, in see k i ng the enhancement, a nd the district court, in apply ing it, were undoubtedly motivated by the ex treme d ang er o u sness of these weapons, which a re “desig ned to penetrate a t least two inches of steel armor,” can travel up to 400 meters, and c ontain 1 .2 an d 1

. 5 o u n ces o f military g rade ex p losive. B ut the g uideli n es specifically address h ow d istrict court judg es s h o u l d approach such a situation. Application note seven to § 2K2.1 states:

I n a case in w hich the cumulative result of the i n c r eased base o ffense level and the enhancement under subsection (b)(3) does not adequately capture the seriou sness of the offe n s e because of the ty pe of destructive device involved, the risk to the public welfare,

or the risk of d eath or ser i o us bodily injury that the destructive device c reated, an upward departure may

be warranted.

Therefore, if the district court determines that the dang er o f the 40-mm cartridg es involv e d i n t his case merits a hig her
sentence than one within the g u idelines rang e with o n ly a two-level e nhancement und er § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B ), the district court may depart or vary

upward.U N I T E D S T A T E S V

. F L O R E S 14

CONCL USI ON

I n sum, we h old that the definition of a mi s s i le under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) and U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1(b)(3)(A) is a selfpropelled device desig ned to deliver an e x plosive. Therefore, the district c ourt err ed in apply ing the enhancement to the defendants’ sentences because the 40-mm cartridg es i n this

case are not self-propelled weapo n s. W e vacate the defendants’ sentences and remand for resentenci n g

. See United State s v

. Cantrell
, 433 F .3d 1269, 1280 (9th Cir. 20 0 6 ) (holding that a material error in calculating the sentencing rang e, even thoug h the Guidelines are only advisory , is g rounds for resentencing ).

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing

.