United States v. Antonio Thigpen, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2616

Background

Thigpen was arrested after police responded to a disturbance; officers found ~5 grams of marijuana on him and he later admitted placing a stolen Glock with a scratched-off serial number in a garbage can at the residence.
He pled guilty to being a felon and unlawful user in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2)).
At sentencing the district court: elevated his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) based on a prior Iowa third-degree burglary conviction; applied a +4 enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for an altered/obliterated serial number (frame had two digits scratched); and applied a +4 enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony (based on an Iowa weapons statute conviction).
After acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments, the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121–151 months and imposed a 120-month sentence (statutory maximum).
On appeal Thigpen challenged: (1) whether the Iowa burglary conviction counts as a “crime of violence” under § 2K2.1(a)(2); (2) application of the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) serial-number enhancement when only one of multiple serial numbers was altered; (3) the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement; and (4) an alleged procedural error in stating it imposed a non‑Guidelines sentence but imposing a Guidelines-level term.

Issues

Issue	Thigpen's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Iowa third-degree burglary is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2)	Iowa burglary is broader than generic burglary, so it is not a crime of violence (citing Mathis)	Initially urged otherwise; later conceded Iowa burglary is not a crime of violence post-Mathis	Government conceded; district court’s use of the enhancement was harmless because it would have imposed the same 120‑month sentence absent the error
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) applies when only one of multiple serial numbers is altered	Enhancement improper because other serial numbers on barrel/slide were legible and firearm was identifiable	The guideline applies if any serial number on the firearm is altered/obliterated; altering the frame number undermines traceability	Court adopted First/Eleventh Circuit approach: one altered serial number suffices; enhancement affirmed
Whether prior Iowa weapons conviction is excluded as a firearms possession offense under Note 14(C) to § 2K2.1	Argued the Iowa weapons statute is a firearms possession offense and thus excluded from "another felony offense"	Relied on binding Eighth Circuit precedent holding Iowa § 724.4(1) is not within the narrow exclusion	Binding precedent controls (Walker); enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) affirmed
Procedural claim that court said it would impose a nonguidelines sentence but imposed a guideline-term	Argued procedural error that could have affected sentence	Court thoroughly considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and expressly said it would impose the same sentence regardless of Guidelines computation	No plain or prejudicial procedural error; statement not reversible error; judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (discussing when state burglary statutes are broader than the generic offense)
United States v. Serrano-Mercado, 784 F.3d 838 (1st Cir. 2015) (held § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) applies when any one serial number is altered)
United States v. Warren, 820 F.3d 406 (11th Cir. 2016) (endorsing that one altered serial number triggers § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B))
United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014) (held Iowa weapons statute does not fall within Note 14(C) exclusion)
United States v. Pappas, 715 F.3d 225 (8th Cir. 2013) (harmless‑error precedent where district court says it would impose same sentence regardless of guidelines)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing decisions and requirement to consider § 3553(a) factors)