41 F.4th 951
7th Cir.2022Background
- Prado was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; plea to the firearm count preserved his right to appeal his sentence.
- Police executing a search warrant recovered nine firearms from Prado’s home, including five stolen guns and at least one with an obliterated serial number.
- The district court set a base offense level of 20, applied a +4 increase for number of firearms (8–24), a +2 for a stolen firearm, and a +4 for an altered/obliterated serial number; a Guidelines ‘‘hanging paragraph’’ capped the subtotal from those subsections at 29.
- The court then applied a +4 enhancement for possession in connection with another felony and a -3 acceptance credit, resulting in a total offense level of 30; criminal history category IV produced a Guidelines range of 135–168 months, but the statutory maximum was 120 months.
- The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 108 months. On appeal Prado challenged the stacking of the § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancements (stolen firearm + altered serial) and argued any miscalculation was not harmless because the higher Guidelines range could have an anchoring effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prado) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4) permits stacking the +2 stolen-firearm enhancement and the +4 altered/obliterated-serial-number enhancement | § 2K2.1(b)(4) uses “or” and therefore allows only one of the two enhancements; the court erred by applying both | The enhancements address distinct attributes and can be applied cumulatively; both enhancements were properly applied | Court: Plain language and legislative history show subsection uses “or”; only one enhancement under (b)(4) may be applied (no stacking) |
| Whether any error in applying § 2K2.1(b)(4) requires resentencing because of anchoring to a higher Guidelines range | The incorrect higher Guidelines range (135–168) may have anchored the district court and affected the 108-month sentence, so remand is required | Any error is harmless because the statutory maximum (120 months) capped the Guidelines range under § 5G1.1(a), so the court was constrained regardless | Court: Error was harmless—under § 5G1.1(a) the applicable Guidelines range equals the statutory maximum (120 months) in either calculation, so the miscalculation could not have affected the sentence; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffith, 913 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing anchoring effect of Guidelines ranges)
- United States v. Fletcher, 763 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (when Guidelines exceed statutory maximum, statutory maximum becomes the effective Guidelines range)
- United States v. Boroczk, 705 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013) (same principle under § 5G1.1(a))
- United States v. Kruger, 839 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2016) (error in Guidelines calculation is harmless when statutory maximum governs)