Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10342
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60170-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO JAMES,
a.k.a. "T",
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 11, 2016)
Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio James appeals his 36-month sentence, which was imposed
after James pleaded guilty to possession of a short-barreled rifle, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). On appeal, James argues that the
district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), for James’s possession of a gun
with an obliterated serial number. No reversible error has been shown;
we affirm.
We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and the
findings of fact that support a sentencing enhancement for clear error.
United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). We
review with “due deference” the district court’s application of the
sentencing guidelines to the facts. Id. Under this standard, we will not
reverse unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Id.
2
Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 3 of 6
Under the sentencing guidelines, a defendant receives a four-level
enhancement if his offense involved a gun with “an altered or obliterated
serial number.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B). The guidelines provide
expressly that this enhancement “applies regardless of whether the
defendant knew or had reason to believe that the firearm . . . had an
altered or obliterated serial number.” Id., comment. (n.8(B)).
The district court committed no error in applying a section
2K2.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement. James stipulated that he possessed a
commercially-manufactured gun with no identifiable serial number. On
these facts, James was eligible for the sentencing enhancement.
James contends, however, that the enhancement is inapplicable
because the serial number on the gun had not been “altered or
obliterated” intentionally: the serial number was merely “worn down.”
Nothing in the plain language of the guideline provision requires the
serial number to have been tampered with intentionally. Instead, the
guidelines impose strict liability on a defendant for possessing a gun
with an “obliterated” serial number, even if the defendant had no
knowledge or reason to know about the condition of the serial number.
3
Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 4 of 6
See id. The guidelines make no distinction between serial numbers that
have been obliterated intentionally from those numbers that have
otherwise been obliterated by forces of nature. James cites no legal
support for his interpretation of section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B); and we have
found no cases in which this Court, the United States Supreme Court, or
another circuit court has interpreted the enhancement to require an
intentional act.
James also contends that the government breached the plea
agreement when it sought an enhancement under section
2K2.1(b)(4)(B). James bases his argument on evidence of a series of
emails between his former defense counsel and the prosecutor, in which
James contends that the prosecutor implied that the government would
seek no enhancement.
In determining whether the government breached a plea
agreement, we must determine “whether the government’s actions are
inconsistent with what the defendant reasonably understood when he
entered his guilty plea.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1191
(11th Cir. 2008).
4
Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 5 of 6
James’s written plea agreement contains an integration clause
stating that the plea agreement represents “the entire agreement and
understanding” between James and the government and that “no other
agreements, promises, representations, or understandings” exist. The
plea agreement is silent about enhancement under section
2K2.1(b)(4)(B). Also, at the change-of-plea hearing, James testified that
(1) the plea agreement represented the entire understanding that he had
with the government and (2) his guilty plea was not being made in
reliance on promises or assurances not contained in the plea agreement.
In the light of these facts, James could not have relied reasonably
on his mistaken understanding that the government would seek no
enhancement. See Al-Arian, 514 F.3d at 1191-93 (defendant could not
understand reasonably that he would be immune from future testimony
when the plea agreement contained no provision about future testimony,
the plea agreement contained an integration clause, and defendant
testified at the plea hearing that his plea was not made in reliance on
promises or inducements made outside of the plea agreement). Nothing
in James’s plea agreement prohibited the government from seeking an
5
Case: 15-10342 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 Page: 6 of 6
enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B); the government committed
no breach.
AFFIRMED.
6