Opinion ID: 213839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Freeman's sentencing

Text: As part of his plea agreement, Freeman waived the right to appeal his sentence except for the grounds that (a) the sentence includes a term of custody that exceeds the maximum Guideline imprisonment range, or (b) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty. The district court determined that Freeman's base offense level under the Guidelines for possessing stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) was 12. This level was increased by six based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) because the offense involved between 25 and 99 firearms. The court also imposed a four-level enhancement for trafficking in firearms based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). In addition, the court addressed a possible four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. But the court clarified before calculating Freeman's total Guidelines range that it had misspoken and had actually intended to impose the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(5). Finally, as suggested by the PSR, the court reduced Freeman's offense level by three based on Freeman's acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)-(b). A final offense level of 19 and criminal history category of I brought his applicable Guidelines range to 30 to 37 months in prison. Freeman argued that the district court's imposition of a four-level enhancement for trafficking in firearms constituted impermissible double counting because his conviction and the enhancement were both predicated on his selling firearms. The government responded that the enhancement for trafficking in the firearms was not accounted for by Freeman's conviction because Freeman could have been convicted solely for having received or having possessed the stolen firearms, even if he did not sell them to a third party. Moreover, the government argued, even if Freeman's conviction did account for his trafficking in the firearms, the four-level enhancement for trafficking concerned a distinct aspect of Freeman's conduct in that his 12-point base offense level accounted only for his possession of, but not his trafficking in, the firearms. The court agreed with the government's position and overruled Freeman's objection to the four-level enhancement. After the district court discussed the various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, it concluded that an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) was appropriate. This provision allows for departures from the defendant's putative Guidelines range in the exceptional case in which there is present a circumstance that the Commission has not identified in the guidelines but that nevertheless is relevant to determining the appropriate sentence. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B). The court explained that because Freeman admitted that he had planned on robbing the undercover agent at gunpoint, and did not carry out this plan only because he was unable to unlock the door to his apartment, an upward departure was warranted. In making this determination, the court also compared Freeman's sentence to the types of sentences that the court generally imposed in these types of situations, as well as the fact that Freeman, the younger junkie[,] was leading the older junkie [Roehm] down the path in this case. The court ultimately imposed a sentence of 43 months in prison, which constituted a 6-month upward departure from the Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months that would have otherwise been applicable. In addition, the district court ordered Freeman to pay $27,000 in restitution, minus the value of any firearms that are recovered. When the court first suggested this restitution amount, Freeman's attorney stated that Freeman was willing to make every effort, once he is employed, to try to make recompense for his wrongs here. But when the court actually ordered restitution at the end of sentencing, the probation officer pointed out that restitution is limited to the count of conviction, and that the only firearms referenced in the indictment were the ones that were a part of the transactions with the undercover agents. The probation officer further observed that restitution was not appropriate in this case because all of the firearms referenced in the indictment were recovered. In response, the government asserted that the relevant conduct would be such that the restitution would be appropriate. The PSR noted that the total value of the stolen firearms was approximately $26,000 (rather than the $27,000 referenced by the court), minus approximately $8,000 for the 12 firearms retrieved by the undercover agents, leaving the Arcade's total loss at approximately $18,000. Moreover, the Arcade's owner recovered most of his losses through an insurance claim that he filed.