United States v. Rafael Velasco, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8054

Velasco, an inmate, witnessed one inmate (Sanchez) attack another (Esquivel); instead of reporting, Velasco and two others retaliated by holding Sanchez down and repeatedly stomping and kicking his head on the prison floor.
Sanchez suffered serious facial fractures, lacerations, bruises, and required hospital treatment.
Velasco pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony; the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 15–21 months (offense level 8, CHC V).
The Government sought a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B), arguing the inmates’ shoes used in conjunction with the solid prison floor were a dangerous weapon.
The district court credited corrections officer testimony describing repeated stomping of Sanchez’s head, applied the 4-level enhancement (revising the range to 27–33 months), and sentenced Velasco to 36 months. Velasco appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shoes used to stomp a victim’s head against a hard floor qualify as a "dangerous weapon" under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B)	Gov: Ordinary objects can be dangerous weapons if used with intent to inflict bodily injury; shoes+floor here were used to cause serious harm.	Velasco: Rule would be overbroad (could turn bare hands/feet into weapons); witness couldn’t identify shoes as steel-toed or inherently dangerous.	Court: Affirmed—shoes in conjunction with hard ground can be a dangerous weapon based on objective conduct and effect.

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: legal questions de novo; factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Estrada-Fernandez, 150 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 1998) (whether an object is a dangerous weapon is a question of fact dependent on circumstances)
United States v. Perez, 897 F.2d 751 (5th Cir. 1990) (intent measured objectively by what a victim could reasonably infer)
United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2005) (boots used to repeatedly stomp a victim’s head constitute a dangerous weapon)
United States v. Schoenborn, 4 F.3d 1424 (7th Cir. 1993) (same: weapon determination is fact-specific)