Opinion ID: 766904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Decision to Enhance Webb's Offense Level for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Text: 72 Webb contends that the trial judge erred in enhancing Webb's offense level for possession of a firearm during the course of the conspiracy. Webb argues that the gun found under his bed was not present during the conspiracy and therefore should not count against Webb for sentencing purposes. 73 This Court reviews findings of fact made in sentencing hearings and the district court's application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines under a clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (7th Cir. 1997). 74 The Guidelines establish a two-level sentencing enhancement [i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed. U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). The accompanying commentary explains the rationale behind the enhancement: 75 The enhancement for weapon possession reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at his residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in his closet. 76 U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1, Commentary n.3. 77 In its discussions on the application of the weapons enhancement, this Court has rejected arguments by defendants that the mere presence of firearms in their residences does not warrant application of the enhancement provided in sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). See, e.g., United States v. Atterson, 926 F.2d 649, 663 (7th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). In Atterson, we also explained that the government is not required to show a connection between the weapon and the offense, only that the weapon was possessed during the offense. Id. 78 Webb acknowledges that under Atterson and other case law from this Circuit, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for possession of a firearm. Webb argues, however, that Atterson and its ilk have been wrongly decided by this Court and should be overturned. Webb offers no compelling reason for this Court to overrule Atterson, and, finding none, we decline to do so. 79 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not commit clear error when it enhanced Webb's offense level for possession of a firearm pursuant to U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1).