How the term 'underlying offense' should be interpreted under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · Sixth CircuitSmith

  “The commission did not give a clear indication that the Sixth Circuit Smith decision was the correct interpretation of "underlying offense,” but merely identified the conflict between the circuits.” — United States v. Brown, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedParedes139 F.3d 846

  “The facts in Paredes are nearly identical to the facts in the case before us.” — United States v. Brown, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedFlennory145 F.3d 1268

  “Amendment 599 abrogated Flennory to the extent that the new application note expanded the definition of underlying offense to include the relevant conduct punishable under U.S.S.G.” — United States v. Brown, acknowledging the split

• DiscussedDiaz248 F.3d 1107

  “Diaz, 248 F.3d at 1107 (citing the amended language of § 2K2.4 Application Note 2 to hold that "relevant conduct cannot be used to enhance the offense level of the underlying offense.”).” — United States v. Brown, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 7th Cir.United States v. Mrazek998 F.2d 453

What the split turns on

Statutes:

§ 3582(c)(2) ·

§ 922(g) ·

§ 924(c) ·

§ 3582(b)(2)

Doctrines & tests:

double counting ·

relevant conduct