United States v. Ronald Cook, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 836

Sweet and Cook broke into two licensed gun dealers and stole 32 firearms; some guns were later sold for cash and drugs (heroin and cocaine base).
Both pled guilty to theft of firearms from a licensed dealer and cooperated with authorities; several stolen guns were recovered.
Presentence reports set a base offense level and recommended enhancements: +6 for number of firearms, +2 for stolen firearms, +4 for trafficking in firearms (§2K2.1(b)(5)), and +4 for using a firearm in connection with another felony (drug distribution) (§2K2.1(b)(6)(B)).
Defendants objected that (1) the §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement did not apply because the guns did not facilitate the drug offense and (2) applying both §2K2.1(b)(5) and §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was impermissible double counting.
The district court found §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applicable because trading guns for drugs facilitated the drug distribution, and held both four-level enhancements apply because they punish distinct aspects of the transaction.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: trading firearms for drugs can constitute use of a firearm in connection with a drug felony, and the two enhancements target different harms (trafficking vs. facilitating drug distribution).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (use in connection with another felony) applies when firearms were traded for drugs	Government: Trading firearms for drugs "used" the firearm to facilitate drug distribution; without the guns the distribution would not have occurred	Cook/Sweet: The drugs facilitated the firearm offense; any gun-use was coincidental and did not facilitate the drug offense	Held: Yes. Trading guns for drugs constitutes use that facilitated drug distribution; §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies
Whether applying both §2K2.1(b)(5) (trafficking) and §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is impermissible double counting	Government: Enhancements punish different aspects—trafficking (putting guns into illegal commerce) and facilitating a drug felony	Cook/Sweet: Both enhancements punish the same conduct (selling guns for drugs), so applying both double counts	Held: No double counting. Enhancements address distinct aspects/harms (trafficking vs. facilitating drug distribution) and may both be applied

United States v. Huffman, 461 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2006) (interpreting §2K2.1(b)(6) use/facilitation standard)
United States v. Lang, 537 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding trading a firearm for drugs can constitute "use" under §2K2.1(b)(6))
United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2010) (no double counting where enhancements punish distinct aspects of the same conduct)
United States v. Smith, 516 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2008) (permitting multiple enhancements when they penalize distinct harms)
United States v. Perkins, 89 F.3d 303 (6th Cir. 1996) (double-counting principles in guideline enhancements)