United States v. Ronnie Duke
870 F.3d 397
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronnie Edward Duke assaulted an Assistant U.S. Attorney at an arraignment, repeatedly striking the attorney’s head against a courtroom table and pushing the attorney’s legs into the table, causing bruising and an abrasion.
- Duke pleaded guilty to assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b).
- The PSR set a base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 and recommended enhancements: +4 for use of a dangerous weapon (the table) (§ 2A2.2(b)(2)), +3 for bodily injury (§ 2A2.2(b)(3)(A)), +2 for conviction under § 111(b) (§ 2A2.2(b)(7)), and +6 for official-victim enhancement (§ 3A1.2(b)); with acceptance, total offense level = 26.
- Duke objected that the table was not a “dangerous weapon” under the Guidelines and that the court’s enhancements double counted the same conduct.
- The district court overruled objections, found the table a dangerous weapon, adopted the PSR calculations, and sentenced Duke to 97 months; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courtroom table was a “dangerous weapon” under the Guidelines | Table was capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm when used to smash the victim’s head; facts support weapon finding | Table is not an “instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury” and was stationary, so not a dangerous weapon | Affirmed: functional analysis supports finding table was a dangerous weapon under § 2A2.2 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 n.1(D) |
| Whether applying the weapon enhancement and using the same finding in base offense level was impermissible double counting | Multiple enhancements are appropriate and supported by the Guidelines and Commission amendments | Using the weapon finding both to set base offense level and to apply § 2A2.2(b)(2) is double counting | Affirmed: Sentencing Commission amendment permits both base level and weapon enhancement to apply |
| Whether giving both bodily-injury enhancement and § 111(b) enhancement constituted impermissible double counting | Both enhancements reflect different punished harms: bodily injury and aggravated statutory penalty for assault on federal employees | Enhancements duplicate the same bodily-injury conduct, so they improperly compound | Affirmed: enhancements penalize distinct aspects/harms and are permissible together |
| Whether scoring under § 2A2.2 and also applying the Official Victim enhancement § 3A1.2 constituted impermissible double counting | Both provisions reflect distinct intended penalties; Commission intended them to apply together | Applying both duplicates the same official-victim basis already inherent in § 2A2.2 base score | Affirmed: Commission commentary and precedent show §§ 2A2.2(b)(7) and 3A1.2 may apply together; permissible double counting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Callahan, 801 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2015) (adopts functional approach to what qualifies as a dangerous weapon under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Tolbert, 668 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2012) (upheld dangerous-weapon finding based on circumstances, object characteristics, and common experience)
- United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179 (6th Cir. 1999) (discusses impermissible double counting when the same conduct is punished twice)
- United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2010) (explains permissible double counting when Commission intends multiple penalties)
- United States v. Sweet, 776 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2015) (allows multiple enhancements when they target distinct aspects/harms)
- United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 1994) (stationary objects can qualify as dangerous weapons under § 111)
- United States v. Gholston, 932 F.2d 904 (11th Cir. 1991) (overturned desk treated as dangerous weapon in § 111 context)