Opinion ID: 2996748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Original Sentencing Procedure

Text: When the district court sentenced Mr. Howard and Mr. Pointer, the Guidelines contained a procedure to avoid such double counting. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 5 (1992). The district court, aware of the potential for double counting, employed that methodology. 4 (...continued) violence or drug trafficking crime . . . for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime— (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years. 5 The commentary in § 2K2.4 provided, Where a sentence under this section is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, any specific offense characteristic for the possession, use, or discharge of a firearm (e.g., §2B3.1(b)(2)(A)-(F) (Robbery)), is not to be applied in respect to the guidelines for the underlying offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1992). 8 Nos. 02-1024 & 02-1285 Under this earlier version of § 2K2.4, the general rule prohibited the application of the specific offense characteristics for the possession, use or discharge of a firearm to the underlying offense when an individual was also convicted of a § 924(c) violation. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1992). However, there was an exception to this general prohibition against applying the specific offense characteristics relating to weapon enhancements. The commentary at that time provided an alternate procedure to be employed whenever the underlying conviction without enhancements together with the § 924(c) conviction resulted in a shorter sentence than would have been imposed if the defendant had not been charged under § 924(c) and the guideline weapon enhancements had been employed. See U.S.S.G. § 6 2K2.4, cmt. n.2, ¶ 2 (1992). This exception applied to Mr. Howard and Mr. Pointer. The district court therefore started with the base offense level of 20 for the underlying robbery offense. Then, various guideline enhancements were added for specific offense characteristics, one of which was for 6 The second paragraph of § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1992), indicated that paragraph one’s normal calculation procedure applied except where the maximum of the guideline range from Chapter Five, Part A (Sentencing Table) determined by an offense level adjusted under the procedure described in the proceeding paragraph, plus the term of imprisonment required under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . . ., is less than the maximum of the guideline range that would apply to the underlying offense absent such adjustment, the procedure described in the proceeding paragraph does not apply. Instead, the guideline range applicable to the underlying offense absent such adjustment is to be used after subtracting the term of imprisonment imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . . . from both the minimum and maximum of such range. Nos. 02-1024 & 02-1285 9 conduct related to the discharge of a weapon. Next, following the guideline procedure in § 2K2.4, the district court subtracted 60 months from the maximum and minimum guideline range of the robbery sentence to avoid any double counting. See Howard PSR at ¶ 104; Pointer PSR at ¶ 79. Finally, the district court imposed a 60-month consecutive sentence for the § 924(c) offense. R.53; see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1992). This 60-month subtraction procedure eliminated the double-counting problem inherent in using the weapon enhancements with a separate § 924(c) conviction. See United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1310-11 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that the 60-month subtraction method was not impermissible double counting).