N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R ANDOLPH B ENJAM IN R ODM AN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10470

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-01047-R OS-2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 12, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, SAC K *** , a

nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. R andolph Rodm an a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic at ion of the U.S. Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s on re m and for re se nte nc ing a fte r our de c isions in Unite d 

# FIL ED M AY17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt D. Sa c k , Se nior C i rc u it Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.State

s v . Rodman , 776 F.3d 638 (9th C ir. 2015), a nd Unite d State

s v . Rodman , 596 F. App’ x 548 (9th C ir. 2015). Rodm an a rgue s tha t the distric t c o urt e nga ge d in im pe rm issibledouble c ounting by a p ply ing a n e nha nc e m e nt for c om

m i tting a n offe nse whe re in “ any

fire arm . . . ha d a n a lte re d or oblite ra t e d se ria l num be r,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B ), in se nte nc ing R odm an for c o nvic tions unde r 18 U.S.C . § 922(k) a

nd 26 U.S.C . § 5861(g) (C ounts 62 a nd 65, re spe c tive ly ), both of whic h involve d a

n e le m e nt of oblitera ting a se ria l num

be r. W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc ing unde r the ha

rm le ss e rror doc trine . Se eUnite d State s v . MunozC amare n a , 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). Harm le ss e rror re vie w a

pplie s whe re the distric t

c o urt “pe rform s the se nte nc ing a

na l y sis with re spe c t to a

n inc orre c t Guide line s ra

nge tha t ove rla ps substa ntia lly with a c o rre c t Guide line s ra

nge suc h tha

t the e xpla

nation for the se nte nc e im

pose d is suffic ie nt e ve n a s to the c o rre c t range .” Id. at

1030 n.5. He re , R odm an a

rgue s for a

n e rror in doublec ounting only with re spe c t to C o unts 62 a nd 65. He i de ntifie s no doublec ounting e rror with re spe c t to the se nte nc e s for the re m a inde r of the fifte e n c ounts of c onvic tion, e a c h of whic h wa s to run c onc urre ntly , and at

le a st som e of whic h would ha ve re c e ive d the sa

m e ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a )(5) be c a u se the y “ involve d a

fire arm de sc ribe d in 26 U.S.C . § 5845(a ).” Furthe r, the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B ) 2e nha

nc e m e nt c ould ha

v e be e n, a nd in fa c t wa s, a

p plie d to a

t le a st one of the se sa

m e c ounts. Rodm a

n would the re fore have re c e ive d the sa m e se nte nc e e ve n if the distric t c o urt did not a

pply the e nha nc e m e nt to thec onvic tions unde r C ounts 62 and 65. Ac c ordingly , a

ny double c ounting e rror on C ounts 62 a nd 65 wa s ha rm le s s. AFFIRM E D.

3