Court Opinion

ID: 9380695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 00:00:21.734576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.799174
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20222      Document: 00516682747         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/20/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                                                       March 20, 2023
                                  No. 22-20222
                                Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Nolan Sharp,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:21-CR-189-1

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge:
          Nolan Sharp appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction
   of felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court erred in
   enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), which applies only
   when a defendant’s firearm “had an altered or obliterated serial number,”
   because there is no evidence that his rifle ever had a serial number. We agree
Case: 22-20222      Document: 00516682747          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/20/2023

                                    No. 22-20222

   and join all other circuits that have considered this question. Accordingly,
   we VACATE Sharp’s sentence and REMAND for further proceedings.
                                          I
          Sharp was arrested by the Houston Police while in possession of two
   firearms. Leading up to his arrest, the Houston Police Department had
   learned that the Backstreet Breadwinners, a street gang of which Sharp was a
   member, was having a memorial party at a local park for a slain member. The
   Department then surveilled the park to observe the activities of the gang.
   Police officers noted that they observed several gang members, many of
   whom they were able identify by name.
          As the celebration concluded, Sharp and several other gang members
   left the park and dispersed to a local convenience store. Sharp left shortly
   after his arrival at the store. While surveilling Sharp’s activities, police
   officers indicated that Sharp was driving at such a high rate of speed that they
   lost sight of his vehicle. Consequently, they notified a nearby patrol unit to
   orchestrate a traffic stop.
          Once the car was stopped, an officer approached Sharp’s vehicle, and
   Sharp opened his driver’s side door. As the officer moved closer, he
   observed a loaded .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol on Sharp’s lap. The
   officer confiscated the pistol, instructed him to exit the vehicle, and took him
   into custody. An inquiry of Sharp’s criminal history revealed that he was a
   convicted felon. The police searched the car and found a loaded .223 caliber
   semi-automatic short-barreled rifle that did not have a serial number and
   whose maker is unknown.
          Sharp was charged with a single count of possession of a firearm by a
   convicted felon, and he pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. His Pre-
   Sentence Report assessed a base offense level of 14. Relevant here, he
   received an enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), which provides for a four-

                                          2
Case: 22-20222      Document: 00516682747            Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/20/2023

                                      No. 22-20222

   level enhancement when the defendant’s firearm “had an altered or
   obliterated serial number.” In response, Sharp filed an objection asserting
   that § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) is inapplicable because there was no evidence that his
   rifle ever had a serial number. Sharp’s attorney again made the same
   objection during sentencing, but the district court overruled the objection,
   concluding that the provision applied because the enhancement provision
   was concerned with “untraceable and unmarked guns.”                Sharp timely
   appealed.
                                           II
          We review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines
   de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Jones, 927 F.3d
   895, 896 (5th Cir. 2019). At issue in this appeal is whether an enhancement
   under U.S.S.G § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) is proper when there is no evidence that the
   firearm ever had a serial number. Guideline 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) provides for a
   four-level increase “if [the] firearm . . . had an altered or obliterated serial
   number.”
          Sharp argues that the district court erred in applying an upward
   adjustment under the provision. He notes that there is no evidence that his
   rifle ever had a serial number, and so no serial number could have been
   “altered or obliterated” under the terms of the guideline. The government
   contested Sharp’s objection in the district court, arguing that the
   enhancement should nonetheless apply because the absence of a serial
   number made Sharp’s weapon untraceable and “that is what the Court and
   the guidelines are trying to prevent.” But on appeal, the government agrees
   with Sharp’s objection and concedes that the imposition of the sentencing
   enhancement was error. Both parties request that we remand this case to the
   district court for resentencing.

                                           3
Case: 22-20222      Document: 00516682747          Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/20/2023

                                    No. 22-20222

          We agree that § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) does not apply when there is no
   evidence that the firearm ever had a serial number.                   The text
   of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) is clear that it only applies when the firearm “had an
   altered or obliterated serial number.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). And in
   ordinary parlance, something cannot be “altered or obliterated” if it never
   existed in the first place. Cf. Matter of Lopez, 897 F.3d 663, 669 (5th Cir.
   2018) (“When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their
   ordinary meaning.” (citation omitted)). Consequently, to apply an upward
   enhancement under the provision, the government must present evidence
   showing that Sharp’s rifle once had a serial number. Because there was no
   such evidence, we hold that the district court erred in applying a four-level
   enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).
          The provision’s general purpose to deter untraceable and unmarked
   guns does not alter this outcome. Although “words are given meaning by
   their context, and context includes the purpose of the text,” purpose “is to
   be described as concretely as possible,” and it is relevant “only on deciding
   which of various textually permissible meanings should be adopted.” Antonin
   Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
   56–57 (2012). The text at issue is unambiguous, and so “our inquiry begins
   and ends with the text.” Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620,
   622 (5th Cir. 2013).
          In reaching this conclusion, we join four of our sister circuits that have
   addressed the present issue and come to the same conclusion that
   § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) does not apply when the firearm never had a serial number.
   See United States v. Mann, 701 F.3d 274, 310 (8th Cir. 2012) (“The
   sentencing enhancement applies only to firearms which once possessed a
   serial number which has been removed.”); United States v. Laughrin, 438
   F.3d 1245, 1248–49 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that upward enhancement
   under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) is improper when the defendant’s shotgun “had

                                          4
Case: 22-20222     Document: 00516682747             Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/20/2023

                                      No. 22-20222

   never borne a serial number”); United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 460
   (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that upward enhancement under the provision is
   inappropriate when the defendant’s silencer “never had a serial number”);
   United States v. Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir. 1990) (same).
                                  *        *         *
          We VACATE Sharp’s sentence and REMAND to the district court
   for further proceedings.

                                           5