Opinion ID: 4317843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frederick Lewis

Text: The district court sentenced Frederick Lewis on October 5, 2017. Amongst the enhancements to his base oﬀense level, the PSR suggested the two-level stolen ﬁrearm enhancement; the four-level traﬃcking enhancement; and the four-level other felony oﬀense enhancement. Lewis raised several objections; relevant here, Lewis argued the other felony oﬀense enhancement was improper because it resulted in “double counting,” as he also received the traﬃcking and stolen ﬁrearm enhancements. The district court overruled Lewis’s objection. It explained: There’s no double counting involved because there has been an enhancement because the ﬁrearms were sto- len. The enhancement for possession of the ﬁrearm in connection with another oﬀense goes beyond the fact that the ﬁrearm was stolen. It’s possession of the ﬁrearm in connection with the commission by Mr. Lewis 1 The government conceded that the PSR’s suggestion of also imposing three criminal history points based on the July 1999 conviction was improper. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.11. 6 Nos. 17-3084, 17-3127, 17-3396, 17-3559 of another oﬀense, namely stealing ﬁrearms oﬀ the train car…. [T]he stolen ﬁrearm enhancement would apply whether or not Mr. Lewis had anything to do with the theft of the ﬁrearm in the ﬁrst place. Lewis’s total adjusted oﬀense level was 34 and criminal history category was VI. Due to a statutory cap, the Guidelines recommended 240 months’ imprisonment. They also suggested one-to-three years of supervised release. The court considered and discussed the § 3553(a) factors at length, and it imposed a below-Guidelines imprisonment term of 180 months and a three-year term of supervised release. The court explained that supervised release was appropriate “[g]iven the seriousness of this oﬀense and the long unabated history of criminal conduct by Mr. Lewis.” It also noted that the “term of supervised release is not intended to be additional punishment” but instead is “intended to be a resource.” It emphasized that the probation oﬃcer would “provide support and guidance and mentoring and resources.” At the end of the hearing, the government asked the court if it was “fair to say that the Court would impose that sentence regardless of how the enhancements were [applied].” The court replied that it “did intend to point that out,” and stated it would not have imposed a lower sentence if the Guidelines range was lower.