Opinion ID: 785549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement for Carjacking

Text: 12 United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B3.1(b)(5) permits a two-level enhancement [i]f the offense involved carjacking. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(5) (2003). Carjacking is defined as the taking or attempted taking of a motor vehicle from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1, cmt. n. 1 (2003). 13 Cline argues that the district court's application of this section constituted impermissible double counting, which occurs if the same aspect of a defendant's conduct factors into his sentence in two separate ways, and neither Congress nor the Sentencing Commission intended to impose multiple penalties. United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 193-94 (6th Cir. 1999). 14 Cline's only citation in support of this argument is to Farrow, in which we determined that it was impermissible double-counting to employ Farrow's act of using his vehicle as a dangerous weapon both to convict him of aggravated assault and to enhance his sentence (for otherwise using a dangerous weapon, i.e., the same vehicle). Id. at 195. However, Cline fails to note the language in Farrow observing that the Sentencing Guidelines expressly mandate double counting under some circumstances through the cumulative application of sentencing adjustments. Id. at 194. For example, Congress has clearly indicated its intent to punish cumulatively violations of §§ 2119 and 924(c) [the federal carjacking statute and the provision for enhanced punishment for using a dangerous or deadly weapon during a violent crime, respectively]. United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106, 108 (6th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Singleton, 16 F.3d 1419, 1425 (5th Cir.1994)), cited in Farrow, 198 F.3d at 194. 15 Given this express mandate, the district court properly imposed the enhancement for carjacking.