948 F.3d 709
6th Cir.2020Background:
- Defendant Charles Sands, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon after agents found a .40 caliber pistol with the serial number "SBS63662" scratched in three places.
- The PSR recommended a 4-level enhancement under USSG §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for an "altered or obliterated serial number;" Sands objected, arguing the numbers remained legible to the naked eye.
- At sentencing the district court credited that the numbers were defaced and "much more difficult to read," applied the enhancement, and sentenced Sands to 78 months (guideline range 70–87 with enhancement; 46–57 without).
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed the guideline interpretation de novo (factual findings for clear error) and examined circuit precedent, especially the Ninth Circuit’s United States v. Carter standard.
- The Sixth Circuit adopted Carter’s test—serial numbers are "altered or obliterated" when materially changed so accurate information is less accessible—and held that serial numbers still readable to the naked eye do not meet §2K2.1(b)(4)(B).
- The court vacated Sands’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, instructing district courts to apply the Carter framework and a "naked-eye" demarcation in factfinding.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USSG §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) applies when a serial number is defaced but legible to the unaided eye | The government argued the defacement made accurate information less accessible and justified the 4‑level enhancement | Sands argued scratches left the number readable to the naked eye, so it was only "defaced," not "altered or obliterated" | Adopted Carter: apply enhancement only when the serial number is materially changed so accurate information is less accessible; a serial number still readable to the naked eye is not "altered or obliterated." |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carter, 421 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2005) (adopted test: serial number is altered when materially changed so accurate information is less accessible)
- United States v. Adams, 305 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2002) (held changes that make a serial number appreciably harder to discern support conviction under §922(k))
- United States v. Harris, 720 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 2013) (applied Carter-like approach; found enhancement appropriate where digits were unreadable to naked eye)
- United States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2009) (adopted Carter standard but upheld enhancement where number remained readable—treated as an outlier by the Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Hayes, 872 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2017) (applied Carter standard; enhancement upheld when forensic methods needed to recover number)
- United States v. Jones, 643 F.3d 257 (8th Cir. 2011) (applied Carter standard; enhancement upheld where number not visible to naked eye)
- United States v. Justice, 679 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2012) (upheld enhancement where lab restoration was required to read serial number)
- United States v. Fuller-Ragland, 931 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2019) (distinguished; panel reviewed only for plain error and relied on an uncontested PSR finding of partial obliteration)