Opinion ID: 4672099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Glover’s Challenge

Text: On appeal, Glover argues that the district court erred in applying a sixlevel firearm enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) for three of his four Hobbs Act robbery convictions (Counts Three, Four, and Five, but not Count Six). He contends that because he was convicted of a § 924(c) violation in connection with his fourth Hobbs Act conviction (Count Six), the firearm enhancement cannot be applied to Counts Three, Four, and Five under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.4. As Glover objected to the application of this enhancement before the district court, we review the district court’s application de novo. United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 692 (5th Cir. 2013). The sentencing guideline for § 924(c) convictions is Guideline § 2K2.4. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.4 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). Note 4 of that guideline explains that when a sentence under that guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, no weapon enhancement, such as Guideline § 2B3.1, is to be applied for that underlying offense. Id. cmt. n.4. For further 1 Before we made this holding, the Supreme Court had remanded this case to our court twice in Davis v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1979, 1979 (2018) (mem.), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). 2 We vacated Count Two, an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction. Davis, 784 F. App’x at 278. 2 Case: 20-10228 Document: 00515798483 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2021 No. 20-10228 clarification, note 4 provides an example: “if a defendant is convicted of two armed bank robberies, but is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in connection with only one of the robberies, a weapon enhancement would apply to the bank robbery which was not the basis for the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction.” Id. Just like the example, Glover’s six-level enhancement was applied to only those robbery convictions which were not the basis for his § 924(c) conviction. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in applying the six-level enhancement to Glover’s convicted robberies charged in Counts Three, Four, and Five, and we affirm his sentence.