Opinion ID: 202348
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Multiple weapons enhancement

Text: 83 The PSR recommended a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) because the offense involved a total of eight guns: the six guns stolen and the two guns that the defendant and his co-conspirator brandished during the robbery. 10 The defendant objected to the proposed enhancement on the basis that there was no evidence that the 2 items the robbers possessed during the robbery were in fact firearms under application note 1 of 2K2.1. The district court rejected this reasoning, recounting the victims' testimony at trial regarding the weapons used in the robbery. On appeal, the defendant abandons his previous argument and raises a different claim, arguing that there was insufficient proof that the firearm used in the robbery was unlawfully possessed for the purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C). 11 84 An application note to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) explains that [f]or purposes of calculating the number of firearms under subsection (b)(1), count only those firearms that were unlawfully sought to be obtained, unlawfully possessed, or unlawfully distributed .... The defendant argues that since he had no prior felony convictions, he did not unlawfully possess the gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (prohibiting individuals with felony convictions from possessing a firearm). However, as the government points out, the defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (prohibiting a fugitive from justice from possessing a firearm) and § 922(g)(3) (prohibiting an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from possessing a firearm). The defendant offers no argument as to why his possession of a firearm would not be unlawful under these provisions. The defendant was a fugitive from justice and, according to the PSR, he admitted to regularly using marijuana. We therefore find no plain error in the application of this sentencing enhancement. 85