Opinion ID: 686739
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sec. 2D1.1 Enhancement

Text: 42 James first contends that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence two levels under Sec. 2D1.1 for his possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He complains that the district court double counted by first convicting him of two counts under Sec. 924(c) for the possession of two firearms and then enhancing his sentence under Sec. 2D1.1 for possessing a firearm in a drug trafficking offense. True, a sentencing court may not enhance a drug trafficking sentence based on a defendant's possession of a firearm if the defendant also is convicted under Sec. 924(c) for the possession of that same firearm. 31 But no such double counting occurred here. 43 James was convicted under Sec. 924(c) based on his use of or carrying two specific guns: a Sundance Model A-25, .25 caliber pistol, and a Companhia Brasileira De Cartuchos Model SB, 12 gauge shotgun. But his sentence was enhanced under Sec. 2D1.1 because the court found that James armed Washington with a third gun belonging to James--a blue-steel, .25 caliber, semi-automatic handgun--so that Washington could protect himself and his drugs while conducting a particular drug transaction. James was neither indicted nor convicted under Sec. 924(c) for the use of or carrying that pistol. The district court therefore did not make a double-counting error in enhancing James' sentence under Sec. 2D1.1 based on its finding that James' codefendant, Washington, possessed that pistol during a drug trafficking offense. 32 As the Eleventh Circuit recently explained, under such circumstances an enhancement is entirely proper because two armed men pose a much greater threat to public safety than does one. 33 44