United States v. Rodriguez

In United States v. Rodriguez, No. 23-50069 (5th Cir. May 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit held that the district court had committed plain error by applying an elevated base offense level under Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(6).

USSG § 2K2.1 applies to defendants convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, and subsection (a)(6) subjects a defendant to a higher offense level, as relevant here, if the defendant knew or had reason to believe that a firearm would be transferred to a “prohibited person.” That term includes many categories of people for whom it is illegal to possess a gun.

Here, the Government “failed to meet its burden of proving that he bought the firearms in question with knowledge or reason to believe that they would be transferred to a ‘prohibited person.’” The defendant had agreed to purchase firearms in the United States and place them under a bush at a highway rest area to be picked up by someone he only knew as “El Negro.” In turn, he was paid $200 per gun.

The record, however, contained no evidence that any of the “potential recipient of the firearms were part of one of the classes of people whose firearm rights are restricted” from possessing firearms, so it was error to apply the enhanced offense level. That error also satisfied the stringent plain-error standard, in large part because the defendant received a 60-month sentence. “If the district court had not applied the elevated base offense level, Rodriguez’s total offense level would have been 25 (rather than 27), and the advisory Guidelines range would have been 57 to 71 months (rather than 70 to 87 months).”

Because of that plain error, the Fifth Circuit vacated Rodriguez’s sentence and remanded his case for resentencing under the lower Guideline range.