Court Opinion

ID: 9480112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:38:47.83298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:29.810152
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the panel’s opinion except with respect to the discussion regarding automatic weapons.
In departing, the District Court relied on the nature of the firearms, noting that semi-automatics are the “weapon of choice” in the drug trade. But the applicable guideline explicitly rejects the type of firearm as a sentencing criterion: it differentiates according to intended use, “not ... upon the type of firearm.” See Guidelines § 2K2.1 (commentary). The government’s brief notes that Guidelines § 5K2.6 allows the court to enhance the sentence in accordance with “the dangerousness of the weapon” used or possessed in the commission of the offense. But it would be illogical to construe this general provision to override the Commission’s specific statement that the type of firearm is irrelevant to the appropriate sentence for the crime charged in this case.
Further, the fact that the guns were loaded does not appear to be relevant to the crime charged. While whether a gun is loaded would be a relevant consideration for crimes involving illegal use of a firearm (e.g., armed robbery), this offense is aimed at the illegal acquisition of guns. The focus is on the means used to acquire the firearms and the purpose for which they are acquired. Whether a gun is loaded says little about the severity of this crime: a loaded gun might have been il*1120legally acquired for bear hunting, and an empty one for the drug trade.
Defendant apparently acquired the firearms for the illegal purpose of resale. As the government observes, whether the firearm was obtained for an unlawful purpose is an important factor in determining the appropriate sentence. Once again, however, this factor is built into Guidelines § 2K2.1: it calls for a four-point reduction in offense level where the firearms were obtained for a lawful purpose. The offense level has been set under the assumption that the weapons were acquired for unlawful purposes; therefore, the defendant’s illicit purposes do not ordinarily justify a departure. See United States v. Uca, 867 F.2d 783, 790 (3d Cir.1989) (under Guidelines § 2K2.1, “the intended use of the guns is not a circumstance warranting upward departure”). Departure could, of course, still be warranted if the court finds that Guidelines § 5K2.0 applies.1

. Where the applicable guidelines, specific offense characteristics, and adjustments do take into consideration a factor listed in this part, departure from the guideline is warranted only if the factor is present to a degree substantially in excess of that which ordinarily is involved in the offense of conviction.
Guidelines § 5K2.0.