United States v. Rodrequist Warren, 820 F.3d 406

Defendant Rodrequist Warren pleaded guilty to illegally receiving a firearm while under indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(D).
At sentencing the district court applied a four-level U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement for possession of a firearm that “had an altered or obliterated serial number.”
The firearm had two serial-number imprints: the frame’s serial number was intact, but the slide’s serial number had been altered or obliterated.
Warren argued the guideline did not apply because not all serial numbers (or specifically the manufacturer/importer serial number) were altered, and also argued the slide number was not a serial number required by federal regulation.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed guideline interpretation de novo and relied on plain-language construction and related precedent.
The court affirmed, holding the enhancement applies when any serial number on the firearm has been altered or obliterated; the slide number qualified as a serial number under the guideline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) applies when only one of multiple serial numbers on a firearm is altered or obliterated	Warren: enhancement should not apply unless the firearm’s manufacturer/importer serial number (or all serial numbers) is altered	Government: enhancement applies when any serial number on the firearm is altered or obliterated	Court: Plain language of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) requires only that the firearm “had an altered or obliterated serial number”; enhancement applies because one serial number was altered
Whether the altered mark on the slide qualifies as a “serial number” for purposes of the guideline	Warren: slide’s number isn’t a required federal serial number and thus should not count	Government: any number placed on the firearm and used to identify it qualifies	Court: Under Warren’s own definition, the slide number is a serial number; regulatory requirement is irrelevant

United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448 (11th Cir.) (review of guideline interpretation is de novo)
United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir.) (use traditional statutory-construction principles to interpret guidelines)
United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600 (11th Cir.) (presumption that inclusion/exclusion of language in guidelines is intentional)
United States v. Serrano-Mercado, 784 F.3d 838 (1st Cir.) (reading § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) to require only that any serial number be altered)
United States v. Alabama, 778 F.3d 926 (11th Cir.) (discussion of use of indefinite article ‘a’ as meaning ‘any’ or ‘one’)
Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. State Superintendent of Educ., 746 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.) (in pari materia used only to resolve ambiguity)