[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10342

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60170-BB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO JAMES, 

a.k.a. "T",

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 11, 2016)

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio James appeals his 36-month sentence, which was imposed 

after James pleaded guilty to possession of a short-barreled rifle, in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). On appeal, James argues that the 

district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement, 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), for James’s possession of a gun 

with an obliterated serial number. No reversible error has been shown; 

we affirm. 

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and the 

findings of fact that support a sentencing enhancement for clear error. 

United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). We 

review with “due deference” the district court’s application of the 

sentencing guidelines to the facts. Id. Under this standard, we will not 

reverse unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed.” Id. 

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 2 of 6 
3

Under the sentencing guidelines, a defendant receives a four-level 

enhancement if his offense involved a gun with “an altered or obliterated 

serial number.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). The guidelines provide 

expressly that this enhancement “applies regardless of whether the 

defendant knew or had reason to believe that the firearm . . . had an 

altered or obliterated serial number.” Id., comment. (n.8(B)). 

The district court committed no error in applying a section 

2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement. James stipulated that he possessed a 

commercially-manufactured gun with no identifiable serial number. On 

these facts, James was eligible for the sentencing enhancement.

James contends, however, that the enhancement is inapplicable 

because the serial number on the gun had not been “altered or 

obliterated” intentionally: the serial number was merely “worn down.” 

Nothing in the plain language of the guideline provision requires the 

serial number to have been tampered with intentionally. Instead, the 

guidelines impose strict liability on a defendant for possessing a gun 

with an “obliterated” serial number, even if the defendant had no 

knowledge or reason to know about the condition of the serial number. 

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 3 of 6 
4

See id. The guidelines make no distinction between serial numbers that 

have been obliterated intentionally from those numbers that have 

otherwise been obliterated by forces of nature. James cites no legal 

support for his interpretation of section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B); and we have 

found no cases in which this Court, the United States Supreme Court, or 

another circuit court has interpreted the enhancement to require an 

intentional act. 

James also contends that the government breached the plea 

agreement when it sought an enhancement under section 

2K2.1(b)(4)(B). James bases his argument on evidence of a series of 

emails between his former defense counsel and the prosecutor, in which 

James contends that the prosecutor implied that the government would 

seek no enhancement. 

In determining whether the government breached a plea 

agreement, we must determine “whether the government’s actions are 

inconsistent with what the defendant reasonably understood when he 

entered his guilty plea.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1191 

(11th Cir. 2008).

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 4 of 6 
5

James’s written plea agreement contains an integration clause 

stating that the plea agreement represents “the entire agreement and 

understanding” between James and the government and that “no other 

agreements, promises, representations, or understandings” exist. The 

plea agreement is silent about enhancement under section 

2K2.1(b)(4)(B). Also, at the change-of-plea hearing, James testified that 

(1) the plea agreement represented the entire understanding that he had 

with the government and (2) his guilty plea was not being made in

reliance on promises or assurances not contained in the plea agreement. 

In the light of these facts, James could not have relied reasonably 

on his mistaken understanding that the government would seek no 

enhancement. See Al-Arian, 514 F.3d at 1191-93 (defendant could not 

understand reasonably that he would be immune from future testimony 

when the plea agreement contained no provision about future testimony, 

the plea agreement contained an integration clause, and defendant 

testified at the plea hearing that his plea was not made in reliance on 

promises or inducements made outside of the plea agreement). Nothing 

in James’s plea agreement prohibited the government from seeking an 

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 5 of 6 
6

enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B); the government committed 

no breach.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 6 of 6