Source: http://openjurist.org/442/f3d/128/united-states-v-roberts
Timestamp: 2015-05-29 08:44:38
Document Index: 350979649

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 5845', '§ 921', '§ 921', '§ 110105', '§ 2', '§ 921', '§ 921']

442 F3d 128 United States v. Roberts | OpenJurist
442 F. 3d 128 - United States v. Roberts	Home442 f3d 128 united states v. roberts
442 F3d 128 United States v. Roberts 442 F.3d 128
UNITED STATES of America Appellee,v.Ernest ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 04-6610 CR.
Defendant-appellant Ernest Roberts appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence, entered after a jury trial in the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.), finding Roberts guilty of dealing in firearms without a license and conspiring to deal in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A) and 371. On November 12, 2004, Roberts was sentenced principally to fifty-four months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a mandatory special assessment of $200. On appeal, Roberts asserts, inter alia, that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 2K2.1(a)(5). We address Roberts' other challenges to his conviction and sentence in a concurrently filed summary order.
When calculating Roberts' sentence, the district court applied § 2K2.1(a)(5), which states that a sentencing court should find a base offense level of 18 "if the offense involved a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)." Although § 921(a)(30) was in effect at the time of Roberts' offense and jury trial, it was repealed before Roberts' sentencing by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, Pub.L. No. 103-322, Title XI, Subtitle A, § 110105(2), 108 Stat.1996, 2000 (1994). Nevertheless, the district judge applied a base offense level of 18 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(5) because one of the firearms on which the conviction was based, an Intratec 9 millimeter pistol, qualified as a "semiautomatic assault weapon" under the pre-repeal version of § 921(a)(30).
Roberts argues that because § 921(a)(30) was repealed at the time of his sent