### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ap ril 8, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E. Siler, J r., Unit ed S tates C ircuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1332 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 10 8- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us HERNAN MARCELO VEGA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 8, 200 4) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BA RKE T T a nd S IL E R , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * SIL ER , C ircuit Judg e:Not all semiautomatic assa ult weapons a

re illeg al. The “g randf

ather ” provision of the 1994 1 a ssa ult we a po ns ba n e ns ur e d th a t th e ba

n d id n ot a

pp ly to t he po sse ssi on

or s a le of

su c h a ssa

ult wea pons otherwise lawfully possessed under fede ral lawon the date of its enactment. See 18 U. S.C. § 922(v)( 2). 2 D ef en da nt H er

na n M ar ce lo V eg a, ha vin g pl ea de d gu ilt y to thr ee c ount s of
m ak ing f al se sta te m en ts i n c onne ct ionw iththe pur ch as e of f ir earm s invio la tio n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (a)( 1) (A), ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s ca lc ul at io n o f hi s s en te nc e. W e rev ers e. V eg a w as ch ar ge d in a te n- co unt ind ic tm en t f

or vari ous ins tanc es of

giv ing a fake a ddr es s on A T F fo rm 4473 w he n at te m pti ng to pur ch as e a fi re ar m , in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( a) (1 )( A ). He ev en tua lly ple ad ed gui lty to thr ee c ount s in
ex ch an ge f

or the gove rn m en t’ s dism iss al of the re m ai nin g seve n. A t sent en ci ng, the
co urt se t hi s ba se of

fe nse le ve l a t 18 be ca

use und er U SS G § 2K2. 1( a) (5 ) his of fe nse

“ inv olv ed af ir earm de sc ri be d in
. . . 18 U
. S. C. § 92 1( a) (3 0) ” - na m el y , a n A ct ion A rm s U Z I (l ist ed

in 18 U
. S. C. § 92 1( a) (3 0) (A )( ii) ) - an d th e fi re arm w as not of the ty pe “ ex em pted un de r th e pr ovi sio ns o f 18 U
. S. C. § 92 2( v) (3 ). ” U SS G § 2K2. 1,
com m ent. ( n.3) ( 2003 ). V ega obje cted o n the ground that the enhanced offense level (18, as opposed to 12) shou ld not apply because th e g overnm ent had not proved that the U Z I w as a n ill egal

UZI, i.e., one m anuf

ac tur ed aft er the semiauto m at ic a ssa ult
w ea pons ban e na ct ed

in 1994
. T he distri ct c ourt r ej ec te d V eg a’ s arg um en t bu t

13

se nte nc ed him to the m ini m

um se nte nc e pe rm itt ed

by the appl ic ab le r an ge ( 37
m onth s). T he iss ue squ ar el y be fo re thi s c ourt i s w he the r the U nit ed S ta te s S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion( the “ Co m

m iss ion ”) ex ce ed ed its auth or ity in pr ovi din g f

or ase nte nc ing enhancem ent for crim es i nvol ving sem i-autom atic weapons legally possess ed under the “ gr an df

athe r” prov is ionof

the 199 4 a ssa

ult w ea pons ban. R ev ie w ing thi s qu es ti on of l aw de novo , se e, e.g ., Un it ed St at es v. Smi th , 54 F.3d 690, 691 (11th Cir. 19 95 ), we fin d t ha t i t d id
. In198 4, Co ngr es s c re at ed the Co m m iss ion , c ha rg ing it

w ith“ es ta

bli sh[ ing ] sentencing p olicies and practices for the F ederal c rim inal j ustice sy stem .” 28 U. S. C. § 99 1 ( b ) ( 1 9 8 5 )
. T h e e n ab l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n g r a n t e dt h e C o m m i s s i o n “ s i g n if

ic an t discretion in form

ulating guidelin es.” Mis tr et ta v. Uni te d S ta te s, 488 U
. S. 361 , 377 (1 989)
. T he Co m

m iss ion ’ s auth or ity , how ev er , is not plen ary . I n th e ev en t a gui de lin e co nf

lic ts w ithasta tut e, the dis cr et ionof the Co m m iss ion“ m

ust bowto the specific directives of C ongress.” United States v. L aBonte, 520 U.S
. 751, 757 (199 7). Se e a ls o Un it ed

St at es v. Egg er

sdor f, 126 F. 3d 1 318, 132 0 ( 11 th Ci r. 199 7) ( “ T he statute controls in the event of a conflict betw een the guideline and th e statute.” ). Here, we s im

pl y can no t re co nc il e USSG § 2K2 .1(a )(5 ) w i t h 1 8 U.S.C. § 922(v)(2). S ubsection 922( v) ( 2) e xe m pt s a l l w e a

pons purchased or transfer red before4

Co ngr es s en ac te d the as sault w ea pons ba n, co dif

ie d in the pr ec ed ing subs ec tio n ( 18 U
. S. C. § 922( v) (1 ))
. In m ak ing it la w fu l to posse ss pre -b an se m i- au tom at ic w ea pons , Co ngr es s e xpr es se d ade sir e to p ro te ct thi s a ct ivi ty
. It m akes li ttl e se nse , the n, to pr ovi de f or inc re as ed ba se of fe nse le ve ls f

or pr ote ct ed co nduc t. T he re ex ist s in he re nt tension betwee n § 2K2.1(a )(5) and 18 U .S .C. § 922(v)(2), and, as the Suprem e Court ha s m ade cl ear, s e e La Bon te , 5 2 0 U.S . a t7 5 7 , i n s u ch s i tu at i o n s t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s guid eline m

ust bo w to the Congressional directive. W e ar e not

the f ir st c ir cu it to ho ld tha t § 2K 2. 1( a) (5 ) cannot c oe xis t w ith18 U
. S. C. § 922( v) (2 ). Se e U ni te d S ta te s v. O’Ma ll ey, 332 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2003 ). The on ly cases to th e co nt rary are two un pu bl is he d c as es . See United Sta tes v. Emers on , 86 Fe d. Appx. 696 (5 th C ir
. 200 4) ; Uni te d S ta te s v. Ha yes , 68 Fe d. Appx. 432 (4 th Ci r. 200 3)
. W e ag re e w iththe S ixth C ir cu it tha t the Co m m iss ionc an not inc re as e anof

fe nse le ve l f

or pos se ssi on o f a se m i- au tom at ic w ea pon tha t is l eg al to poss es s, a nd tha t f

or the inc re as ed

of fe nse le ve l un de r § 2 K2.1 (a )( 5) to ap ply , the pr ose cu tio n m

ust f ir st pr ove tha t the se m i- au tom at ic w ea pon in que sti on i s, in fa ct , il le ga l. Fo r the fo re goi ng re as ons, w e RE V E RS E the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt and REMAND fo r res en te nc in g.