No. 18-6347
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: burglary criminal-procedure criminal-sentencing double-counting firearm-enhancement firearm-theft guideline-enhancements guideline-range sentencing-considerations sentencing-guidelines stolen-firearm u.s.s.g-2k2.1
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2018-11-16
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the district court erred when, based on impermissible double counting, it incorrectly applied a higher guideline range. In calculating Petitioner's GSR, the court imposed a four-level enhancement for stealing a firearm during a burglary and a two-level enhancement because the firearm he possessed was stolen. U.S.S.G. §2K2.1 (b)(6)(B) and U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4). This error was impermissible double counting because both guideline enhancements derive from the same facts and bear on the same sentencing consideration: the stolen nature of the firearm.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in applying impermissible double counting when calculating the guideline range
Docket Entries
2018-11-19
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
2018-10-24
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-10-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 15, 2018)
Attorneys
Adam Brake
Jane Elizabeth Lee — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent