927 F.3d 895
5th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Richard Deshawn Jones was arrested in March 2017 possessing a handgun whose metal serial‑number plate had been removed from the frame; the slide still bore a legible serial number.
- Jones pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the PSR applied a four‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) for a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number.
- Jones objected at sentencing and appealed the enhancement’s application.
- The core factual question was whether removal of a metal serial‑number plate from a firearm’s frame qualifies as an ‘‘altered or obliterated’’ serial number under § 2K2.1(b)(4).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed guideline application de novo and factual findings for clear error, and considered circuit precedent interpreting ‘‘altered or obliterated’’ to include changes that make accurate information less accessible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4) applies when a metal serial‑number plate is removed from the frame but another component (the slide) has a legible serial number | Govt: enhancement applies because removal materially changes accessibility of identifying information | Jones: serial number itself wasn’t altered or obliterated; only a plate was removed | Held: Enhancement applies; removal is a material change that renders identification less accessible |
| Whether ‘‘altered or obliterated’’ requires making tracing impossible or extraordinarily difficult | Govt: words cover changes that make accurate information less accessible, not just impossibility | Jones: guideline text modifies ‘‘serial number’’ so removing a plate isn’t an alteration of the serial number itself | Held: Court rejects semantic distinction; location removal functions as obliteration/alteration |
| Whether ‘‘removed’’ is encompassed by ‘‘obliterated’’ or ‘‘altered’’ | Govt: dictionary definitions and precedent interpret ‘‘removed’’ within obliteration | Jones: guideline does not explicitly say "remove" | Held: Prior Ninth Circuit authority supports treating removal as obliteration; court adopts that view |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2009) (defines ‘‘altered or obliterated’’ as materially changed so accurate information is less accessible)
- United States v. Carter, 421 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2005) (adopts accessibility standard; alteration need not make tracing impossible)
- United States v. Serrano‑Mercado, 784 F.3d 838 (1st Cir. 2015) (applies enhancement where frame serial was obliterated though slide serial remained legible)
- United States v. Romero‑Martinez, 443 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (holds ‘‘removed’’ falls within definitions of ‘‘obliterated’’ when plate removal makes firearm less traceable)
- United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2017) (supports single‑obliteration rule allowing enhancement when any one serial number on the gun is altered)