Opinion ID: 2767023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Leaming’s Sentence

Text: 3 Leaming argues that the district court improperly calculated his Sentencing Guidelines range when it applied a six-point enhancement for “conduct evidencing an intent to carry out such threat.” U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(1). As the government acknowledges, Leaming objected to this enhancement before his sentencing. We conclude that the district court’s decision to apply this enhancement was a “significant procedural error.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Both the presentence report and the district court at sentencing referred to Guidelines Section 2A6.1(b)(1) as an enhancement for conduct evidencing an intent to carry out “the offense.” However, the enhancement only applies to defendants who engage in conduct evidencing an intent to carry out “such threat.” Although Leaming did carry out the offense of filing a false lien, nothing in the record supports the conclusion that Leaming made a “threat” within the meaning of Section 2A6.1(b)(1). This error was not harmless. The district court rejected the government’s request for an extraordinary sentence and gave Leaming a sentence within the Guidelines range. We vacate and remand for resentencing without application of the six-point enhancement under Section 2A6.1(b)(1). 4 We reject Leaming’s other claims of sentencing error. The record is clear that Leaming filed “more than two false liens,” warranting an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2)(B). It was not impermissible double-counting for the district court to apply an enhancement under Section 3A1.2 based on the government official status of the victim. United States v. Williams, 14 F.3d 30, 31-