Opinion ID: 657206
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Money Laundering Base Offense Level

Text: 42 For the first time on appeal, defendants Climpson and Richardson claim that the district court sentenced them under an inapplicable base offense level. In particular, defendants contend that the district court incorrectly sentenced them under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(a)(1) rather than Sec. 2S1.1(a)(2). Essentially, a base offense level of 20 is applicable to money laundering offenses which merely conceal a serious crime that had already taken place, while a base offense level of 23 is applicable to money laundering offenses which encouraged or facilitated the commission of further crimes. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1, comment. (backg'd.) (amended eff. Nov. 1, 1991). At oral argument, the government acknowledged that the incorrect base offense level was used by the district court, but characterized the error as technical in nature. While this court reviews guidelines issues which have been waived because they were not asserted in the district court only for clear error, see United States v. Nagi, 947 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2309, 119 L.Ed.2d 230 (1992), the application of a clearly incorrect base offense level in sentencing will be deemed clear error under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we conclude that remand to the district court for resentencing of Climpson and Richardson is required with respect to this claim as well.