Opinion ID: 203644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enhancement for weapon with obliterated serial number

Text: Marceau's challenge to the four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number is limited to his claim that the Sentencing Commission acted beyond its authority when it increased the enhancement from two to four levels via adoption of Amendment 691. Unlike his argument with respect to the expired weapons ban: that there was no authority for a sentence enhancement for conduct no longer illegal, here Marceau claims that the Amendment was adopted in violation of procedures controlling the Commission's rule-making authority. We disagree. We review the legality of a Guidelines provision de novo. United States v. Ramos-Paulino, 488 F.3d 459, 463 (1st Cir.2007). Marceau bases his argument on a portion of the Commission's enabling legislation, which provides that [t]he Commission periodically shall review and revise, in consideration of comments and data coming to its attention, the guidelines promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this section. 28 U.S.C. § 994(o). Marceau claims that the adoption of the amendment was arbitrary because the Commission's original published reason for the amendment was the difficulty in tracing firearms with altered or obliterated serial numbers, yet the adopted amendment's reasoning also mentions an increase in the market for such weapons. Marceau argues that the final reliance on two reasons, rather than on only the original reason, renders the enhancement illegal. He provides no legal support for this assertion, however. The proposed Guideline amendment was published; comments were received from, among others, prosecutors and defenders; Congress interposed no objection. We find no violation of section 994(o).