Opinion ID: 77204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Guidelines

Text: 13 The Government asserts the district court effectively ignored this Court's holding in Gilbert by declining to impose a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Government contends the refusal to follow Gilbert exceeded the district court's discretion. 14 In Gilbert, we held carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Florida law is a `crime of violence' under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1), requiring application of the career offender enhancement. 138 F.3d at 1372. We extended the reasoning of United States v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398, 401 (11th Cir.1996), which held carrying a concealed weapon creates a serious potential risk of physical injury and qualifies as a violent felony under the federal armed career criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Gilbert, 138 F.3d at 1372 (Because the definitions of `violent felony' and `crime of violence' are in this respect identical, Hall 's conclusion applies equally to the question at hand here.). 15 The court correctly found the resulting Guidelines range for a base offense level of 31 (the 34 career offender level minus 3 points for acceptance of responsibility) and a mandatory criminal history category of VI is 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The court specifically acknowledged that under our precedent in Gilbert, Williams qualified for the § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement and applied that enhancement. Having correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, including the career offender enhancement, the court was then able to sentence Williams outside the applicable range, if the final sentence was reasonable. See Crawford, 407 F.3d at 1179. The Government's assertion the district court effectively ignored Gilbert by not applying the career offender enhancement is without merit.