Opinion ID: 2974947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: We will not reverse the district court’s findings of fact with respect to the Guidelines unless the findings are clearly erroneous. United States v. Davidson, 409 F.3d 304, 310 (6th Cir. 2005). In contrast, this court “reviews de novo the district court’s legal interpretation of the Guidelines, including mixed questions of law and fact.” United States v. Settle, 414 F.3d 629, 630 (6th Cir. 2005) (italics omitted).
On appeal, Howse’s only challenge is to the district court’s conclusion that the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) properly applied to his Guidelines calculation. Subsection (b)(5) read as follows in 2003: (b) Specific Offense Characteristics (5) If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense, increase by 4 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 18, increase to level 18. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). No. 06-5017 United States v. Howse Page 4 Howse argues that this court’s decision in Settle forecloses application of the enhancement unless the government can show that the firearm used in the enhancement offense is “clearly connected” to the firearm used in the charged offense. In Settle, this court reinstated in part an earlier opinion affirming the defendant’s conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See Settle, 414 F.3d at 630 (Settle II), reinstating as amended, United States v. Settle, 394 F.3d 422, 424-25 (6th Cir. 2005) (Settle I). The defendant in Settle was stopped by police officers when they discovered that the license plate on the car he was driving corresponded to a different car. Settle I, 394 F.3d at 424. They recovered a .357 magnum pistol, and a subsequent police investigation revealed that Settle had previously been convicted of a felony. Id. This conduct formed the basis of a one-count federal indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Id. at 426. Settle pled guilty. Id. The probation officer noted in Settle’s PSR that during the six weeks following the July 4, 2002 citation for carrying a firearm, Settle “threatened or shot individuals on four occasions.” Id. at 429. At the sentencing hearing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1). Id. at 427-30. Section 2K2.1(c)(1) is a cross-reference provision that contains very similar language to the Guideline at issue in the present case, § 2K2.1(b)(5). Section 2K2.1(c)(1) provides that “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission or attempted commission of another offense,” then the Guideline producing the greatest offense level should be used. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1). The Settle II court stated that “[i]n determining the relevant conduct for Settle’s offense, the district court will be free to consult Guidelines § 2K2.1(c)(1),” and that the base offense level includes both offense conduct and all relevant conduct as determined by the framework described in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). 414 F.3d at 632 & n.2. “Unless otherwise specified,” relevant conduct includes “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant . . . that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). It also includes “all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions” of the relevant conduct as well as “all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(3). Finally, relevant conduct includes “any other information specified in the applicable guideline.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(4). On Settle’s first appeal, this court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court, holding that although “there must be a relationship between firearms that form part of the relevant conduct and the firearms that are part of the offense of conviction,” the firearms do not have to be the same. Settle I, 394 F.3d at 435. The Settle I court held that there was a direct relationship between the two guns because they were both purchased for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm on Settle’s victim, Lonnie Young. Id. at 436. Because the police confiscated the firearm on July 4, 2002 that constituted the basis for the offense conduct, Settle had to procure a different firearm to effectuate the attempted murder of Young on July 17, 2002, the enhancement conduct. Id. Settle sought review of this court’s decision in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated Settle I and remanded for resentencing in light of Booker. This court in Settle II once again rejected Settle’s argument that the weapon used in the enhancement conduct must be the same as the one used in the offense conduct. It instead cited with approval a Tenth Circuit case, United States v. Jardine, 364 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2004), which held that the use of a firearm in related conduct can trigger § 2K2.1(c)(1)’s cross reference to § 2X1.1’s enhancement provision even if the weapon used in the enhancement conduct is not the same as the weapon used in the offense conduct. Jardine, 364 F.3d at 1208, vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1102 (2005). No. 06-5017 United States v. Howse Page 5 U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 applies to attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy offenses not covered by a specific offense Guideline. Under the cross-reference provision of § 2K2.1(c)(1), § 2X1.1 governs for purposes of offense-level calculation if the application of § 2X1.1 yields a higher offense level than would otherwise be available under the provision covering firearms offenses. As the Settle II court explained: First, the Guidelines require courts to consider all relevant conduct when determining the sentencing guideline range. . . . [T]he defendant’s use of firearms in past drug transactions and his admitted trading of ammunition for methamphetamine were therefore ‘clearly relevant’ to his sentencing for felon-in-possession charges. Second, the defendant’s reading of the word ‘any’ would lead to an absurd result by benefitting those criminals who are not apprehended with the exact firearm they used or possessed in connection with the commission of another offense. In such a case, the government would be precluded from seeking § 2K2.1(c)(1)’s enhancement even when it is undisputed that the defendant used or possessed a firearm, unless it could actually prove it was one of the exact weapons for which the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Settle II, 414 F.3d at 633 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Settle II court also discussed prior Sixth Circuit cases construing similar enhancement provisions of the Guidelines, concluding that circuit precedent requires only that “there must be a relationship between firearms that form part of the relevant conduct and the firearms that are part of the offense of conviction.” Id. at 634. Ultimately, the Settle II court held that, on remand, “the district court may apply Guidelines § 2K2.1(c)(1) if it finds a clear connection between the firearm that Settle possessed on July 4, 2002 and any different firearm he possessed thereafter” during any of the enhancement offenses. Id. (emphasis added). Section 2K2.1(b)(5), the Guideline at issue in the present case, is not a cross-reference provision, but it otherwise contains identical language to § 2K2.1(c)(1) and is situated in the same portion of the Guidelines. “It is axiomatic that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 203 n.12 (1993) (citation and quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold that the application of the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement in this case is proper only if there is a clear connection, pursuant to Settle II, between the firearm that Howse used to assault Edmondson and her daughter and the firearm that he possessed when he was arrested the following day. The only evidence linking the offense firearm with the enhancement firearm is the testimony of Angela Edmondson. She testified that she thought the gun Howse was arrested with the day after the alleged assault was the same one, but nothing in the record suggests that she was present when he was arrested or that she ever saw the gun Howse possessed at the time of his arrest. Howse told the police when he was arrested that he needed the gun for protection and that he could not “go unarmed with these people looking for me.” Without more, we cannot agree with the government’s assertion that one can draw a clear inference from this statement that he possessed the gun to protect himself from individuals aligned with Edmondson as a direct result of the alleged assault the previous day. And although Howse likely possessed the same firearm on the day of the assault as on the day of his arrest, the district court did not make this finding, nor did the government show a clear connection between the two firearms as required under Settle II. The district court found only that Howse pointed a gun at Edmondson during the assault. It made no finding as to whether that gun had any connection, let No. 06-5017 United States v. Howse Page 6 alone a clear connection, to the gun that Howse possessed the next day at the time of his arrest. Based on the present record, we do not find a clear connection between the two firearms and thus leave it to the district court on remand to determine whether such a connection in fact exists. Even though the Guidelines are now advisory rather than mandatory, district courts are still “required by statute to consult them.” United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4). Because “a district court’s misinterpretation of the Guidelines effectively means that it has not properly consulted the Guidelines,” a sentence based on such a misinterpretation is necessarily imposed in error. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d at 801. The district court’s failure in the present case to find a clear connection between the offense firearm and the enhancement firearm means that the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement may have been improperly imposed. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for resentencing on the limited issue of whether the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement can be applied under the “clear connection” test mandated by Settle II. See United States v. Moore, 131 F.3d 595, 597 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[A] limited remand constrains the district court’s resentencing authority to the issue or issues remanded.”). All other sentencing calculations shall be treated as the law of the case, so that Howse’s ultimate sentence upon remand will be grounded solely on whether the application of the enhancement is proper.