Opinion ID: 586507
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: If the offense involved three or more firearms, increase as follows:

Text: Number of FirearmsIncrease in Level 34 (A)3-4add 1 (B)5-7 add 2(C)8-12add 3(D)13-24add 4(E)25-49add 5(F)50 or more add 6. 35 U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (Nov. 1991). 36 It appears obvious that the Sentencing Commission did not consider the number of firearms when it establisheds 2K2.1 (effective 1988). Over time and with the experience it acquired in the interim, the Commission amended this section, effective November 1991, to provide an increase in offense level as indicated above. 37 We find no merit to the appellant's claim that the Commission did, by a process he refers to as deliberate omission, encompass a number of firearms. To follow this reasoning would lead to a conclusion that everything not included in the guidelines has been carefully considered by the Commission and deliberately omitted. The result would be no departures, and this cannot be reconciled with the clearly expressed intent of Congress to allow departures. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). 38 Likewise, there is no merit to the claim that, because the number of firearms is reflected in § 2K2.2(b)(1), the element must have been considered and excluded from § 2K2.1. The guidelines cautioned against such assumptions. The Policy Statement tos 5K2.0 (Nov. 1991) provides: 39 Also, a factor may be listed as a specific offense characteristic under one guideline but not under all guidelines. Simply because it was not listed does not mean that there may not be circumstances when that factor would be relevant to sentencing. For example, the use of a weapon has been listed as a specific offense characteristic under many guidelines, but not under immigration violations. Therefore, if a weapon is a relevant factor to sentencing for an immigration violation, the court may depart for this reason. 40 U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 Policy Statement (Nov. 1991). 41 The issue in the present case is not whether the Commission considered the number of firearms when it adopted § 2K2.2, but whether this element was considered when it adopted § 2K2.1. We find no evidence that the number of firearms was considered when § 2K2.1 was adopted. The base offense level, specific offense characteristics, and other adjustments to this section make no mention of the number of firearms, and the number of firearms purchased by a nonresident using false identification is a relevant factor that is important to the sentencing court. 42 Subsequent amendments to this section also indicate that the element was not originally considered.