United States v. Yoahjan Flores, 729 F.3d 910

Defendants Arturo Lara, Alfredo Lara, and Yoahjan Lara Flores pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. § 371; 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)) after attempting to buy a Colt M203 grenade launcher and three 40‑mm HEDP cartridges from undercover ATF agents.
The government sought a 15‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) applicable when the offense involves a missile, rocket, or a device for launching them; the enhancement was applied and each defendant received the statutory maximum (60 months).
The enhancement was premised on treating the 40‑mm cartridges as “missiles,” which would make the M203 a device for launching missiles; the cartridges contained ~1.2–1.5 oz of explosive, could penetrate armor, and had a greater range than hand grenades.
Key undisputed technical facts: the 40‑mm cartridges are fixed rounds whose propellant is expended at firing, leave the cartridge case behind, are not self‑propelled, and lack any internal guidance system.
The plea agreements preserved the defendants’ right to appeal the district court’s ruling that the cartridges are missiles under § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “missile” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(A) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) includes the 40‑mm cartridges	The cartridges are missiles because they are projectiles designed to deliver explosive charges and thus trigger the 15‑level enhancement	The cartridges are not missiles because they are not self‑propelled and lack guidance; thus only the 2‑level destructive‑device enhancement applies	“Missile” means a self‑propelled device designed to deliver an explosive; the 40‑mm cartridges are not missiles because they are not self‑propelled; vacated and remanded for resentencing

Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561 (use noscitur a sociis to limit broad word meanings)
United States v. Posnjak, 457 F.2d 1110 (2d Cir.) (NFA targets military‑type weapons)
United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.) (interpret Guidelines by drafters' intent)
United States v. Helmy, 951 F.2d 988 (9th Cir.) (discussion of modern "missile" usage)
United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir.) (material Guidelines error warrants resentencing)