United States v. Martinez, 1 F.4th 788

In Feb. 2016, Eric Martinez and accomplices burglarized a residence on the Navajo Nation in McKinley County, NM; Martinez broke the front door with a hammer and left the hammer in the living room.
Stolen items included electronics, jewelry, and ceremonial shawls and robes.
Martinez was charged under the Indian Major Crimes Act (IMCA) and pleaded guilty to an assimilated New Mexico burglary statute (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-3).
At sentencing Martinez sought a New Mexico–style conditional discharge (probation without entry of conviction) and objected to a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1(b)(4) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon (the hammer).
The district court denied a conditional discharge as unavailable in federal court and applied the two-level dangerous-weapon enhancement, sentencing Martinez to 27 months plus one year supervised release.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and for clear error factual findings and affirmed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of New Mexico conditional discharge under the IMCA	Government: IMCA assimilates only state minimum and maximum penalties, not state sentencing schemes like conditional discharge	Martinez: Conditional discharge is a form of punishment under state law and therefore available under IMCA	Conditional discharge unavailable; federal courts may not assimilate state sentencing schemes beyond state min/max penalties; affirmed
Application of § 2B2.1(b)(4) two-level dangerous-weapon enhancement	Government: Possession of the hammer during the burglary qualifies as possessing an instrument capable of inflicting death/serious injury under U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1 and 2B2.1	Martinez: Hammer was not used as a weapon, so it should not trigger the enhancement	Possession alone suffices; a hammer is capable of inflicting serious injury; enhancement properly applied; affirmed

United States v. Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
United States v. Wood, 386 F.3d 961 (10th Cir. 2004) (federal courts cannot apply state sentencing-scheme provisions that conflict with federal sentencing law)
United States v. Garcia, 893 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1989) (limits on sentencing under assimilative statutes)
United States v. Jones, 921 F.3d 932 (10th Cir. 2019) (state conditional-discharge provisions affect state minimums; sentencing schemes not incorporated)
United States v. Bosser, 866 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1989) (contrasting Ninth Circuit view that Hawaii deferred-acceptance could be assimilated)
United States v. Sylve, 135 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998) (Ninth Circuit held a state pre-conviction rehabilitation program assimilable)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines made advisory)
United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2009) (possession of a sledgehammer during a robbery supported a possession-based enhancement)
United States v. Tolbert, 668 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2012) (examples of nontraditional items treated as dangerous weapons in assault cases)