Opinion ID: 185049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of sections 2K2.1 and 2X1.1

Text: 23 The district court's interpretation of sections 2K2.1 and 2X1.1 involves a question of law that we review de novo. See Becraft, 117 F.3d at 1451. We must first determine which subsection of 2K2.1 to apply. Drew argues that under subsections (a) and (b), his total offense level should be 17 and his sentencing range should be 30 to 37 months. 6 Subsection (c) of section 2K2.1, however, is the applicable provision because: (1) Drew used or possessed [the] firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission or attempted commission of another offense namely, attempted first degree murder, and (2) the resulting base offense level under subsection (c) would be greater than 17. Section 2K2.1(c) then refers the sentencing court to section 2X1.1. 24 Section 2X1.1(c) instructs the court to apply the guideline, if any, that expressly cover[s] an attempt to commit another offense as used in section 2K2.1(c). The government argues that, as the district court determined, Drew attempted to commit first degree murder because he had the requisite state of mind, and took sufficiently premeditated actions to constitute attempted first degree murder. Drew, 23 F. Supp. 2d at 44. As discussed supra, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Drew's relevant conduct constituted attempted first degree murder. Referring to the guideline for Assault With Intent to Commit Murder; Attempted Murder, U.S.S.G. 2A2.1, 7 the court applied the base offense level (28) for attempted first degree murder. After the two-level increase for restraint of victim and the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Drew's total offense level is 27 and his sentencing range is 70 to 87 months. See Drew, 23 F. Supp. 2d at 44. 25 Drew further argues, however, that even if section 2K2.1(c) is applicable, the sentencing court erred in interpreting section 2K2.1(c)'s cross reference to section 2X1.1 because section 2X1.1(a) uses the offense level for the substantive offense. Application Note 2 of section 2X1.1 defines substantive offense as the offense that the defendant was convicted of ... attempting ... to commit. Therefore, in Drew's view, the sentencing court should have applied the base offense level for the offense of conviction only--possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Instead, the sentencing court, applying section 2X1.1(c), used the base offense level for attempted first degree murder. Drew's argument rests upon the applicability of substantive offense. But substantive offense relates only to section 2X1.1(a) and (b); substantive offense is not mentioned in section 2X1.1(c). Application Note 2, which defines substantive offense, applies only if section 2X1.1 is applied directly, rather than as a cross-reference from section 2K2.1. United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 743 (5th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Fleming, 8 F.3d 1264, 1266 (8th Cir. 1993). Therefore, section 2X1.1(c) requires the court to apply the offense level for attempted first degree murder prescribed in section 2A2.1.