Opinion ID: 75800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Four-Level Enhancement

Text: 22 The defendants argue that the district court erred in imposing a four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) for their possession of firearms. They contend that the government failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they possessed the firearms in connection with the underlying felony offense. Rather than possessing the firearms in connection with the underlying offense, the defendants argue that their possession of firearms was a mere coincidence and unrelated to the underlying felony. We disagree. 23 The district court imposed the four-level enhancement, finding that the defendants possessed the firearms in connection with the underlying offense and that they did not possess the firearms by accident or coincidence. Rather, the defendants committed the counterfeiting offense with the use of the car, which contained firearms. The defendants could have easily obtained ammunition for the shotgun. In addition, the mere availability and appearance of the firearms could have served to promote the defendants' prolonged criminal episode. 24 Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5) provides, in part, that the district court shall impose a four-level enhancement if the defendants used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense. While § 2K2.1(b)(5) does not define the phrase in connection with, we have held that courts should give such phrases their ordinary meaning. United States v. McClain, 252 F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir.2001). The Sentencing Guidelines hav[e] the force and effect of law, [and] are to be construed as if they were a statute, giving the words used their common meaning, absent a clearly expressed manifestation of contrary intent.  Id. at 1285 (quoting United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999)), (alterations and emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). 25 Our circuit has considered the definition of in connection with in other sections of the guidelines. In United States v. Young, 115 F.3d 834 (11th Cir.1997), we rejected a more restrictive approach to the definition of in connection with contained within USSG § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) (1997). 1 We determined that the meaning of the phrase in connection with, contained within that section, merely reflects the context of [the defendant's] possession of the firearm. Id. at 838. Likewise, in United States v. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999), we gave the phrase in connection with, contained within USSG § 2B5.1(b)(3), 2 an expansive interpretation. According to its ordinary and natural meaning, we held that the firearm does not have to facilitate the underlying offense. Id. at 1308-09. 26 Utilizing these analogous cases, we agree with the district court that enough evidence existed to justify finding that the defendants possessed the firearms in connection with the underlying felony. The fact that the guns were not loaded or inoperable is not dispositive since criminals frequently use unloaded guns to execute crimes. We know of no requirement that the firearms be loaded or operable to meet the in connection with requirement. Regardless, the defendants could have easily obtained ammunition for the shotgun to promote their counterfeiting scheme. Further, it would be reasonable to conclude that the presence of the firearms protected the counterfeit money from theft during the execution of the felony. Additionally, the length of time over which the defendants committed the crimes supports the district court's conclusion that the defendants possessed the guns in connection with the offense of counterfeiting. 27 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the defendants' convictions and sentences. 28 AFFIRMED.