United States v. Antonio Turner, 698 F. App'x 803

Undercover ATF operation purchased multiple handguns from intermediaries who introduced them to Antonio Turner; agents recorded transactions and conversations.
Turner directly displayed and supplied at least two handguns to an intermediary (Hernandez), and additional Turner guns were later sold; one gun had an obliterated serial number.
Turner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and to dealing firearms without a license (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A)).
At sentencing the district court imposed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for firearms trafficking and applied a prior–crime-of-violence enhancement based on an Ohio felonious-assault conviction.
On appeal Turner challenged (1) the § 2K2.1(b)(5) trafficking enhancement as impermissible double counting and unsupported by evidence, and (2) the use of his Ohio felonious-assault conviction as a Guidelines crime of violence.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held the trafficking enhancement targeted conduct distinct from the convictions and that the record supported Turner’s knowledge the guns would be used unlawfully; it also held the prior Ohio conviction qualified as a crime of violence (reviewed for plain error).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(5) four‑level trafficking enhancement improperly double counts conduct	Turner: enhancement duplicates conduct punished by §§ 922(g) and 922(a)(1)(A) so it should not apply	Government: enhancement targets distinct conduct (knowledge recipient unlawful/intended unlawful use) and is supported by facts	Affirmed — no impermissible double counting; enhancement applies and is supported by the record
Whether prior Ohio felonious‑assault conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for Guidelines enhancement	Turner: his Ohio conviction does not meet the Guidelines’ "crime of violence" definition	Government: Sixth Circuit precedent treats Ohio felonious assault as involving violent physical force and thus qualifying	Affirmed under plain‑error review — the Ohio conviction qualifies as a crime of violence

United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179 (6th Cir. 1999) (courts must avoid double counting but may enhance for distinct conduct)
United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2010) (enhancement permissible when it addresses distinct aspects of offense conduct)
United States v. Freeman, 640 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2011) (inferring knowledge of unlawful use from cash-for-guns/nighttime drug context)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions and factual findings)
United States v. Anderson, 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (interpreting Ohio felonious assault as requiring knowingly using force capable of causing physical injury)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain‑error review governs unpreserved sentencing challenges)