United States v. Joshua Grant, 15 F.4th 452

On Sept. 7, 2019, Joshua Grant shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenna Baylock; she survived after surgery. Officers found Grant nearby with a loaded .380 handgun and positive gunshot-residue results.
Grant was indicted and pleaded guilty to two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g): (g)(1) felon-in-possession and (g)(9) domestic-violence-misdemeanant-in-possession, arising from the same possession/incident.
The presentence report applied the U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1 attempted-murder cross-reference via § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), setting a base offense level of 27 (attempted second-degree murder), yielding an offense level 26 and a Guidelines range of 120–150 months (Criminal History VI).
The district court found Grant acted with specific intent to kill (pointed and fired after earlier threats) and imposed concurrent statutory-maximum 120-month sentences on both counts.
On appeal Grant argued (1) multiple § 922(g) convictions/sentences for the same possession violate Double Jeopardy/multiplicity rules, and (2) the attempted-murder cross-reference was improperly applied because intent to kill was not proven.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Multiplicity: May one act of possession give rise to multiple § 922(g) convictions/sentences?	Gov't: Concedes § 922(g) does not authorize multiple punishments for a single incident of possession.	Grant: District court plainly erred by entering two convictions and concurrent sentences for the same possession.	Court: Multiple punishments unauthorized; vacate one sentence and merge the counts into one.
Sentencing: Was the attempted-murder cross-reference properly applied (was there specific intent to kill)?	Gov't: Victim testimony, prior threats, and the act of aiming and firing support specific intent to kill; cross-ref appropriate.	Grant: Evidence at most supports aggravated assault given fighting and intoxication; no specific intent to kill.	Court: No clear error in finding specific intent; cross-reference to attempted second-degree murder under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(2) was proper.
Remedy/Remand scope: Should the case be remanded for full resentencing or a limited correction?	Grant: Requested general remand for de novo resentencing.	Gov't: Did not successfully show resentencing necessary; issue is discrete.	Court: Limited remand ordered—vacate one § 922(g) sentence and merge counts; no full resentencing because the Guidelines calculation and § 3553(a) analysis were unaffected.

Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (Double Jeopardy forbids multiple punishments for the same offense)
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (unauthorized concurrent sentence is unauthorized punishment)
United States v. Parker, 508 F.3d 434 (7th Cir.) (only one § 922(g) conviction for a single possession)
United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir.) (§ 922(g) subdivisions cannot yield separate punishments for one possession)
United States v. Munoz-Romo, 989 F.2d 757 (5th Cir.) (same rule on multiplicitous § 922(g) convictions)
United States v. Shea, 211 F.3d 658 (1st Cir.) (limited-remand and single-conviction principles for § 922(g))
United States v. Winchester, 916 F.2d 601 (11th Cir.) (same rule on § 922(g) multiplicity)
United States v. Ehle, 640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir.) (plain-error review for unauthorized multiple punishments)
United States v. James, [citation="575 F. App'x 588"] (6th Cir.) (shooting in victim's direction can support intent to kill)