Opinion ID: 75681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Double Counting Issue

Text: 13 In addition to the 4-level enhancement discussed above under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), the district court applied a 3-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b) for having created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to a person the defendant knew or had reason to believe was a law enforcement officer. 5 14 We review de novo whether a cumulative enhancement of a sentence under two separate guidelines constitutes impermissible double counting. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d at 1310. 15 Jackson does not contest the factual basis in this case for application of an enhancement under § 3A1.2(b), but argues that because the two enhancements are based on essentially the same conduct- the assault of the officers- the application of both constitutes improper double counting on the part of the district court. 16 This court has not addressed the issue of whether there is impermissible double counting when a defendant receives an enhancement under both § 2K2.1(b)(5) and § 3A1.2(b). We have held, however, that [d]ouble counting a factor during sentencing is permitted if the Sentencing Commission (Commission) intended that result and each guideline section in question concerns conceptually separate notions relating to sentencing. United States v. Stevenson, 68 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d at 1309 (holding that [i]mpermissible double counting occurs only when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant's punishment of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines). We apply a presumption that the Commission intended to apply separate guideline sections cumulatively unless specifically directed otherwise. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d at 1310; Stevenson, 68 F.3d at 1294; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, cmt. 4 (2000) (Absent an instruction to the contrary, the adjustments from different guideline sections are applied cumulatively (added together).). 17 In this case, there is no direct prohibition on assessing enhancements under both § 2K2.1(b)(5) and § 3A1.2(b). Further, § 2K2.1(b)(5) is contained in Chapter Two of the Guidelines, which according to its title concerns offense conduct and characteristics, while § 3A1.2(b) is found in Chapter 3A, dealing with victim-related adjustments. Cf. United States v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 159, 161 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that the criminal history section and an enhancement for offense specific conduct under Chapter 2 serve divergent policies, and thus could consider the same underlying behavior). Moreover, the Guidelines instruct sentencing courts to determine the offense guidelines from Chapter 2 applicable to the offense of conviction and then to apply relevant victim-related adjustments from Chapter 3A. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 (2000). 6 We therefore conclude that the district court did not impermissibly double count the same conduct in applying enhancements at sentencing.