Opinion ID: 600280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: 4 We review guidelines-mandated sentences to see (1) if the court imposed a sentence in violation of law, (2) if the sentence was the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, or (3) if the sentence was outside the applicable guideline range and is unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1118, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992); cf. United States v. Webb, 950 F.2d 226, 231 (5th Cir.1991), (In reviewing a departure from the guidelines, an appellate court must determine two issues: 1) was the departure based on acceptable reasons, and 2) was it a reasonable departure), 3 cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2316, 119 L.Ed.2d 236 (1992). We review the findings of fact made by the district court in reaching the sentencing decision under the clearly erroneous standard. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). Additionally, we note that a district court's interpretation of the guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. White, 945 F.2d 100 (5th Cir.1991). Law and Analysis 5 Initially, this court notes that a firearm need not play an integral role to violate § 924(c). Indeed, a defendant can violate § 924 where the weapon could have been used to protect, facilitate, or have the potential to facilitate drug trafficking. See United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 254 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2064, 114 L.Ed.2d 468 (1991); United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417, 1424 (5th Cir.1989). Congress has made no exception for situations in which the firearm was used but not integral to the offense. See United States v. Beverly, 921 F.2d 559, 562 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2869, 115 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1991). 6 More to the point, in this case the Sentencing Guidelines permit a district court to depart from the guidelines if it finds an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the sentencing guidelines or if it finds unusual circumstances that render the guideline level attached to a specific factor inadequate. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). The district court departed from the sentencing guidelines because of concern that the guidelines did not adequately take into account the interplay of § 924(c)'s five year mandatory minimum sentence with the sentence to be imposed for the underlying drug offense. The district court felt that had it not departed, it would have been required to impose an unduly harsh sentence. The district court incorrectly departed in this case. 7 The sentencing guidelines do consider the interplay of § 924(c) and themselves. Both the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have addressed this issue, and this court finds their reasoning persuasive. See United States v. Dumas, 921 F.2d 650 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2034, 114 L.Ed.2d 119 (1991); United States v. Foote, 898 F.2d 659, 666 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 838, 111 S.Ct. 112, 112 L.Ed.2d 81 (1990). The Application Notes to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, (the guideline provision dealing with convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), clearly evince that the Sentencing Commission did think through the effects of a § 924(c) five year mandatory sentence. Note two (2) informs us that a § 924(c) sentence precludes additional enhancement for an offense specific characteristic for possessing or using a weapon. (e.g. the present case--Caldwell's sentence could have been enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11(b)(1) (possession of dangerous weapon, increase by 2 levels)). Because the court sentenced Caldwell under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, it gave no additional enhancement for his possession of the weapon. Further, Application Note 2 contains an equation to determine the sentence for a defendant convicted of both a § 924(c) firearm offense and an underlying criminal offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, comment. (n. 2). 8 It is an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines for a district court to depart from the applicable sentencing range based on a factor that the Sentencing Commission has already fully considered in establishing the guideline range. Williams, supra at --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1118-1119. The district court lacked authority to deviate downward from the guidelines in this case. It is the order of the court that the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.