Opinion ID: 213839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The unusual nature of Freeman's planned robbery

Text: Freeman also claims that his plan to rob the undercover agent was not unusual or exceptional because involvement in other alleged criminal conduct in addition to the mere weapons possession ... in fact is de rigeur for these type[s] of offenses. But, as the government points out, in the cases upon which Freeman relies, the defendants' advisory guidelines range included an enhancement to reflect the increased danger in unlawfully possessing a firearm in connection with another crime, whereas, in Freeman's case, no aspect of his advisory guidelines range accounted for the risk of harm posed by his planned robbery. Moreover, Freeman's planned robbery was particularly dangerous and unusual because, as the government explains, possessing a firearm in connection with another crime, as a general matter, is one thing (albeit a serious one); but it is quite another (and more serious) to sell firearms to someone immediately before trying to rob the guns back; and it is still another (and yet more serious) where the intended victim of the robbery is an undercover federal agent especially where the defendant believes his intended victim is an undercover law enforcement official. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in imposing a six-month upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B). And even if we are wrong in our view that U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) applies instead of § 2K2.1(b)(2)(6), the alleged error by the district court was harmless.