1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1875

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa

William Delee Hardy, *

* 

Appellant. *

*

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2004

Filed: December 28, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, LAY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

William Delee Hardy was sentenced to 57 months imprisonment and two years

supervised release after pleading guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm, in

violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a) and 5861(d). Hardy appeals the district court's1

two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3). This court reviews de novo a

district court's application of the sentencing guidelines, and its factual findings for
-2-

clear error. See United States v. Rohwedder, 243 F.3d 423, 425 (8th Cir. 2001).

Jurisdiction being proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court

affirms.

The Sentencing Guidelines for firearms offenses state: "If the offense involved

a destructive device, increase by 2 levels." U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(3). Hardy claims

that the shotgun he possessed is not a "destructive device" as defined in 26 U.S.C.

§ 5845(a), and Application Note 4 of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. 

 Application Note 4 provides:

"Destructive device" is a type of firearm listed in 26 U.S.C. §

5845(a),and includes any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas–(i) bomb,

(ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of

more than one-quarter ounce, (iv) missile having an explosive or

incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi)

device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

any type of weapon which will, or which may be readily converted to,

expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and

which has any barrel with a bore of morethan one-half inch in diameter;

or any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in

converting any device into any destructive device listed above. For a

more detailed definition, refer to 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f).

U.S.S.G. § 2K1.1, cmt. n.4 (2004). 

Hardy focuses on 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), which has eight subsections.

Subsections (1) and (2) define "firearm" to mean short-barreled shotguns. Subsection

(8) separately defines "firearm" as a "destructive device." Hardy reasons that by

distinguishing short-barreled shotguns from destructive devices in section 5845(a),

Congress intended that the term destructive device not include a shotgun.
-3-

To the contrary, for purposes of section 5845(a), Congress expressly defined

"destructive device" in section 5845(f) as:

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which

may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an

explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore

of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun

shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly

suitable for sporting purposes; . . . 

26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)(2). This definition of "destructive device" includes most

shotguns not found particularly suitable for sporting purposes. See United States v.

Lee, 351 F.3d 350, 351 n.1 (8th Cir. 2003).

 Neither side points to any finding by the Secretary. See United States v.

Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 1999) (sawed-off shotguns are inherently

dangerous and lack usefulness except for violent and criminal purposes); United

States v. Linson, 276 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2002) (sawing off a shotgun hinders,

rather than aids, sport shooting). 

 Hardy also invokes the difference in punishment between convictions

involving short-barreled shotguns, and those involving destructive devices, in 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B). As Hardy was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) –

not 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – this argument is irrelevant. See United States v. Wynn, 365

F.3d 546, 550 (6th Cir. 2004).

In this case, Hardy stipulated, in the plea agreement, that he possessed a 10-

gauge double-barrel shotgun, with a barrel-length of less than 18 inches, and overall

length less than 26 inches. It is a "destructive device" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3).
-4-

The district court did not err in imposing a two-level enhancement. Hardy's

sentence is affirmed.

__________________________________