Opinion ID: 6103490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: application of the sentencing enhancement

Text: Defendants argue that the district court imposed procedurally unreasonable sentences because the calculations of the sentencing guidelines ranges were faulty. See United States v. Trinidad Acosta, 773 F.3d 298, 309 (1st Cir. 2014). In reviewing a sentence, the court of appeals must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). [A]rguments that the sentencing court erred in interpreting or applying the guidelines are reviewed de novo. United States v. Leahy, 668 F.3d 18, 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Pho, 433 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding that such error[s] of law are reviewed de novo and render a sentence per se unreasonable)). The parties agree that the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) four-point enhancement that was applied in calculating the brothers' guidelines sentencing ranges was in error if the court declined to set aside the § 924(c)(1)(A) convictions. Defendants objected to the four-level enhancement at the sentencing hearing. We agree that the district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement at sentencing pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). - 16 - The relevant sentencing guideline for a conviction under § 924(c) is § 2K2.1(b). If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, [courts] do not apply any specific offence characteristic for possession . . . of . . . [a] firearm when determining the sentence for the underlying offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.4 (2018). So if the weapon that was possessed in the course of the underlying offense also results in a conviction that would subject the defendant to an enhancement under . . . § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) . . . , [courts] do not apply that enhancement. Id. Accordingly, the sentences must be vacated. Cf. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1346 (2016) (In most cases a defendant who has shown that the district court mistakenly deemed applicable an incorrect, higher Guidelines range has demonstrated a reasonable probability of a different outcome.).