Opinion ID: 691028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Double-Counting of Conduct During Sentencing

Text: 39 Jack Wilkins claims that the district court impermissibly double-counted his conduct by adjusting his offense level upward by two points under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) for more than minimal planning, and by four points under Sec. 3B1.1(a) for being a leader or organizer of the criminal activity. 8 However, we have previously explained that the sentence adjustments under U.S.S.G. Secs. 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) and 3B1.1(a) address different concerns. United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 1421, 1429 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 209, 130 L.Ed.2d 138 (1994). The adjustment for more than minimal planning was intended to distinguish between relatively simple crimes and more sophisticated ones. Id. (quoting United States v. Wong, 3 F.3d 667, 671 (3d Cir.1993)). On the other hand, the adjustment for the role in the offense, 'addresses concerns about the relative responsibilities of those involved in the commission of the offense, punishing those more harshly who assume a leadership role.'  Id. at 1429 (quoting Wong, 3 F.3d at 672). 9 Thus, the district court could enhance Jack Wilkins' sentence under both provisions, without impermissibly double-counting identical conduct. Id.