United States v. Timothy Harris, 720 F.3d 499

Timothy Harris pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of firearms by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Police recovered a .25 caliber handgun; the police report described deep gouges and scratches across the serial-number area but stated the numbers were "still legible."
The presentence report recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for a firearm with an "altered or obliterated serial number."
At sentencing the district judge examined the gun in court, could not read the correct serial number from about 18 inches, and observed gouges concentrated on the serial-number area, concluding the marks were intentional.
The district court applied the four-level enhancement and sentenced Harris to 105 months; Harris appealed only the applicability of the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a serial number that remains readable but has gouges/scratches is "altered" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)	Harris: "Altered" requires a material change rendering the number illegible and untraceable, so enhancement shouldn't apply when number is legible	Government: Gouges made number harder to read and thus altered; district court found at least some digits effectively obliterated in courtroom view	Court: "Altered" includes making a serial number less legible; enhancement properly applied where gouges/scratches made it different and harder to read

United States v. Carter, 421 F.3d 909 (9th Cir.) (interpreting § 2K2.1(b)(4) to cover materially changed serial numbers that make accurate information less accessible)
United States v. Jones, 643 F.3d 257 (8th Cir.) (partially filed-off or scratched serial numbers fall within the statute)
United States v. Justice, 679 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.) (focus on perceptibility, not need for sophisticated techniques)
United States v. Perez, 585 F.3d 880 (5th Cir.) (applied enhancement where scratched but readable serial number suggested attempted removal)
United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.) (cited for statutory purpose of discouraging untraceable weapons)