United States v. Tod Pimpton, Jr., 558 F. App'x 335

Pimpton was charged with violent felon in possession of body armor and convicted felon in possession of a firearm after police found both in his car.
Pimpton pled guilty to firearm possession; the body armor count was dismissed.
At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony (violent felon in possession of body armor).
Pimpton objected that the firearm was not possessed in connection with his body armor offense because the items were independently possessed.
The district court overruled the objection and Pimpton was sentenced to 78 months.
On direct appeal, the court vacates and remands for resentencing due to error in the standard used to interpret the enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) requires a firearm to facilitate the other felony.	Pimpton: no connection; no facilitation.	Government: firearm and armor are inherently connected; go hand in hand.	Remand for resentencing; district court erred in applying Villegas standard.
Whether the district court properly interpreted the 'in connection with' standard after amendments and precedent changed.	Villegas remains controlling.	Amendment to USSG cmt. n.14 defines 'in connection with' and abrogates Villegas.	Vacate and remand; district court must apply the definitional amendment rather than Villegas.

United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005) (defined 'in connection with' prior to amendment; energized 'made more dangerous' concept)
United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009) (examples of how the connection can be shown)
United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (amendment reinforces prior practice; commentary note fourteen discussed)
United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 2007) (court may affirm on any record-supported basis; need not reweigh all facts)