Opinion ID: 2996748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amended 489 Procedure

Text: In November of 1993, a new method of dealing with the double-counting problem in these exceptional cases was 7 implemented. The 1993 Guidelines left unchanged the 7 The first paragraph of Application Note 2 was left unchanged, but paragraph 2 was replaced by the text below: In a few cases, the offense level for the underlying offense determined under the preceding paragraph may result in a guideline range that, when combined with the mandatory consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), § 924(c), or § 929(a), produces a total maximum penalty that is less than the maximum of the guideline range that would have resulted had there not been a count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), § 924(c), or § 929(a) (i.e., the guideline range that would have resulted if the enhancements for possession, use, or discharge of a firearm had been applied). In such a case, an upward departure may be warranted so that the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), § 924(c), or § 929(a) does (continued...) 10 Nos. 02-1024 & 02-1285 general prohibition against applying specific offense characteristics for the possession, use, or discharge of a firearm to the underlying offense when there was also a separate 8 § 924(c) conviction. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1993). However, when the underlying conviction (without the guideline enhancements for the specific offense characteristics for the possession, use, or discharge of a firearm) and the § 924(c) conviction produced a shorter sentence than the underlying conviction with its enhancements but without the § 924(c) conviction, a new method of calculation was to be used. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 489. Under the new method, the weapon enhancements are not added to the underlying offense, but the § 924(c) sentence is immediately added. The district court may then determine that it will depart upwardly because the resulting sentence does not adequately represent the gravity of the defendant’s actions. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1993); see also United States v. Banks Giombetti, 245 F.3d 949, 953-54 (7th Cir. 2001) (describing the upward departure procedure while upholding the court’s upward departure); United States v. Ledford, 218 F.3d 684, 689 n.1 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that the upward departure calculation procedure ensured the defendant did not 7 (...continued) not result in a decrease in the total punishment. An upward departure under this paragraph shall not exceed the maximum of the guideline range that would have resulted had there not been a count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), § 924(c), or § 929(a). U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, cmt. n.2 (1993). 8 A violation of § 924(c) then, and today, requires a person to use or carry a firearm “in relation to any crime of violence . . . for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Nos. 02-1024 & 02-1285 11 get a more lenient sentence with the § 924(c) conviction); United States v. Seawood, 172 F.3d 986, 990 (7th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that Application Note 2 to § 2K2.4 permits an upward departure in circumstances where the § 924(c) conviction would result in a shorter sentence). This upward departure replaces the former 60-month subtraction procedure for those few exceptional cases. Amendment 489 was not made retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) (listing amendments that are intended to be retroactive). Amendment 489 merely “simplifie[d] the operation of §2K2.4 in order to reduce erroneous application” of that guideline sentencing provision. U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 489 (1993) (explaining the amendments to the commentary of § 2K2.4).