Opinion ID: 799301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: category iii-ammunition

Text: (a) Ammunition for the arms in Category I . . . of this section. [Nonautomatic, semi-automatic, and fully automatic firearms to caliber .50]. 22 C.F.R. § 121.1. As this court has noted previously in response to a similar argument, the fact that the Munitions List covers a range of unsophisticated weapons and ammunition, including nonautomatic firearms under .50 caliber, [1] prevents Diaz from arguing the design and purpose of § 2M5.2 was generally intended to apply to sophisticated weaponry. See United States v. Galvan-Revuelta, 958 F.2d 66, 68 (5th Cir.1992) (These items [revolvers, pistols, and rifles up to .50 caliber] no more constitute `serious military or space hardware' than does the ammunition that goes in them.). [2] Given this broad scope of intended coverage for § 2M5.2, we turn our attention to whether the use of the word only in subsection (a)(2) limits the application of the lower base offense level to an offense that truly involves only non-fully automatic weapons and no ammunition. For reference, the exact language of § 2M5.2(a)(2) provides for a base offense level of 14, if the offense involved only non-fully automatic small arms (rifles, handguns, or shotguns), and the number of weapons did not exceed ten. (emphasis added). When interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines, we apply ordinary rules of statutory construction and, if the language of the Guidelines is unambiguous, the inquiry ends with the plain meaning of that language. United States v. Rabanal, 508 F.3d 741, 743 (5th Cir.2007). The plain meaning controls unless it leads to an absurd result. Id. (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir.2002)). We see no reason to interpret the plain meaning of the term only to mean anything other than only. As the district court aptly stated during the sentencing hearing, `only' means `only.' Diaz did not have only one small gun hidden in his carhe also had more than 600 rounds of ammunition that could be used in the gun. We note that this interpretation of § 2M5.2 comports with our sister circuit's decision in United States v. Sero, 520 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam). Because the language of the guideline is clear, our inquiry ends. We find that the guideline does not permit finding an exception for including ammunition, no matter how small the quantity. Id. at 190 (citing the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Muthana, 60 F.3d 1217, 1224 (7th Cir. 1995), which held that § 2M5.2(a)(2) did not apply when a defendant's offense involved thousands of rounds of small arms ammunition). As further noted by the court in Sero, To the extent that firearms are harmless without ammunition, this may have been an intentional omission by Congress, id. at 190 n. 3, a proposition we also find reasonable. Nonetheless, Diaz argues the district court's interpretation of § 2M5.2 would provide absurd results because one who smuggles 10 semiautomatic rifles will have a base offense level of 14. But one who smuggles a single bullet will have a base offense level of 26, because his offense did not involve `only' firearms. Yet by arguing for an interpretation of § 2M5.2 that would ignore any ammunition smuggled with the weapons, Diaz's argument could produce similarly absurd results. Presumably under his offered interpretation, an individual smuggling semi-automatic rifles could also attempt to smuggle hundreds or even thousands of rounds of ammunition for use in the weapons but would nonetheless still qualify for a base offense level of 14, so long as he took care to limit his smuggling efforts to ten or fewer guns. Interpreting the language of the then-effective § 2M5.2 to mean that ammunition should not be ignored is further clarified by considering the then-proposed, and subsequently adopted, amendments to § 2M5.2. In November 2011, a revision to the section took effect, stating: (a) Base Offense Level: (1) 26, except as provided in subdivision (2) below; (2) 14, if the offense involved only (A) non-fully automatic small arms (rifles, handguns, or shotguns), and the number of weapons did not exceed two, (B) ammunition for non-fully automatic small arms, and the number of rounds did not exceed 500, or (C) both. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2M5.2 (Nov. 1, 2011). This revision lends additional support to the district court's interpretation that § 2M5.2 is not focused solely on the number of firearms involved but instead requires the court to consider both the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition in light of concerns about the flow of illegal firearms across the southwestern border of the United States into Mexico. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL app. C, vol. III, amend. 753, at 401 (2011). As explained in the commentary accompanying the 2011 revision, § 2M5.2 was amended, in part, to address the inconsistencies in how courts were applying the section to cases involving only ammunition or combinations of small arms and ammunition. Id. at 403-04 (There appears to be differences in how § 2M5.2 is being applied by the courts in such cases.). The Commission determined that, as with export offenses involving more than two firearms, export offenses involving more than 500 rounds of ammunition are more serious and more likely to involve trafficking. Id. at 404; see also United States v. Solis, 675 F.3d 795, 797 (5th Cir.2012) (Amendments to the guidelines and their commentary intended only to clarify, rather than effect substantive changes, may be considered even if not effective at the time of the commission of the offense or at the time of sentencing.) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 5 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir.1993) (citing U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.11(b)(2))). Considering these clarifying comments, the district court did not err in applying the higher base offense level under § 2M5.2(a)(1).