Opinion ID: 563204
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dunlap's Two Point Enhancement Based Upon Section 2T1.3(b)

Text: 81 Dunlap has argued, and the government concedes, that the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level by two points pursuant to Section 2T1.3(b). That section provides, in pertinent part, 82 (b) Specific Offense Characteristics: 83 (1) If the defendant failed to report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal activity, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 12, increase to level 12. 84 (Emphasis added.) During the sentencing hearing, the case agent testified that Dunlap received no more than $8,000 in income from the sale of UBOs in 1987, no more than $2,000 in 1988, and conceded that if the relevant sentencing guidelines provided for an enhancement based upon the receipt of $10,000 in income per year from the sale of UBOs, such threshold was not met. Because the government concedes that no evidence exists to the contrary, it too concludes that the case should be remanded to resentence Dunlap. Thus, in addition to remand for recalculation of all appellants' base offense levels, the case is remanded for a recalculation of Dunlap's offense level absent the two-level enhancement under Section 2T1.3(b). 85