Opinion ID: 170391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Body Armor

Text: Mr. Chambers claims that the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level pursuant to § 3B1.5(2)(B) for using body armor during the commission of the charged drug offense. Mr. Chambers admits to wearing body armor at the time he was arrested, but argues that the enhancement only applies if the body armor is worn in relation to or connection with the drug offense. We agree with the district court’s rejection of this interpretation of § 3B1.5(2)(B). Section 3B1.5(2)(B) instructs courts to enhance a defendant’s offense level when the defendant was “convicted of a drug trafficking crime” and “used body armor during the commission of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5(2)(B). The Guidelines commentary defines “use” as the “active -9- employment in a manner to protect the [defendant] from gunfire,” id. at cmt. 1, which does not suggest an implicit limitation that the body armor must be used in connection with the drug trafficking offense. Where the Guidelines intend such a requirement for application of an enhancement, they state so explicitly. See e.g., § 2K2.1(b)(6) (applying enhancement if defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense”) (emphasis added). Because the court found that “the body armor or bullet-proof vest was functional, it was being used in the manner for which it had been intended . . . at the time [Mr. Chambers] possessed drugs . . . with the intent to distribute them,” Sent’g Tr. 86, application of the enhancement was appropriate.