U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1
Altering or Removing Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers, or Trafficking in Motor Vehicles or Parts with Altered or Obliterated Identification Numbers
(a) Base Offense Level: 8
(b) Specific Offense Characteristics
(1) If the retail value of the motor vehicles or parts (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount.
(2) If the defendant was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, increase by 2 levels.
(3) If the offense involved an organized scheme to steal vehicles or vehicle parts, or to receive stolen vehicles or vehicle parts, and the offense level as determined above is less than level 14, increase to level 14.
Commentary
Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 511, 553(a)(2), 2321.Application Notes:
1. Subsection (b)(3), referring to an "organized scheme to steal vehicles or vehicle parts, or to receive stolen vehicles or vehicle parts," provides an alternative minimum measure of loss in the case of an ongoing, sophisticated operation such as an auto theft ring or "chop shop." "Vehicles" refers to all forms of vehicles, including aircraft and watercraft. See Commentary to §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud). 2. The term "increase by the number of levels from the table in §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount," as used in subsection (b)(1), refers to the number of levels corresponding to the retail value of the motor vehicles or parts involved. Background: The statutes covered in this guideline prohibit altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, importing or exporting, or trafficking in motor vehicles or parts knowing that the identification numbers have been removed, altered, tampered with, or obliterated. Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 511 carry a maximum of five years imprisonment. Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 553(a)(2) and 2321 carry a maximum of ten years imprisonment.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 117–119); November 1, 1993 (amendment 482); November 1, 2001 (amendment 617); November 1, 2010 (amendment 746); November 1, 2015 (amendment 791).
PART C – OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAWS
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective January 25, 2003 (amendment 648). Introductory Commentary to Part C, effective November 1, 1987, was deleted effective January 25, 2003 (amendment 648) and November 1, 2003 (amendment 656).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1991–2018 · leading case: United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001). “To calculate Maung’s prison sentence, the district court started with a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), which applies to convictions for altering or removing motor vehicle VINs or trafficking in vehicles with .”
United States v. Sharon Saunders, 318 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2003). “” 5 See U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment. We, also, have not particularized the appropriate test for applying the enhancement.”
United States v. Ralph Gail Walker, 931 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1991). “” U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment, (n.l). It is clear from the comments that the revised guideline does not apply to all “organized criminal activity.”
United States v. Edward Avery Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir. 1992). “§ 511 is U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1 which provides a base offense level of eight.”
United States v. Daniel Michael Tropiano, 50 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1995). “His presentence report (“PSR”) assigned a base offense level of eight, under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1. It bumped that up six levels under U.”
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “2003) (collecting cases for a parallel provision, U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2), and stating that “the Commission must have intended that only fences, who by definition are not thieves themselves, receive the enhancement”); United States v.”
United States of Am., Cross-Appellant v. Bruce Patterson, Cross-Appellee, 962 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1992). “2 4 Counts of Alteration or Removal of VINs Count 1 (several vehicles) Count 2 (1986 Chevrolet Silverado) Count 5 (1986 CJ-7 Jeep) Count 7 (1987 Chevrolet Silverado) These counts covered by U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1 1 Count of Buying or Selling Vehicles with an Altered VINs Count 1…”
United States v. Vigil, 644 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2011). “2003) (finding that a prerequisite to the application of a similar enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2) “is that the defendant personally received and sold stolen property”); 2 United States v.”
United States v. Bobby Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2018). “U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a). In adopting the findings of the PSR, the district court applied three enhancements to the base level, two of which Fillmore now challenges on appeal.”
United States v. John L. St. Cyr, 977 F.2d 698 (1st Cir. 1992). “1 (discussing defendant's engagement in a gambling business); U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2) (discussing an enhancement for being “in the business of receiving and selling" stolen motor vehicles or parts).”
United States v. Scotty Joe Uder, 98 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 1996). “By contrast, in the present case, Uder's base offense level would have been 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), regardless of the value of the loss taken into account for sentencing purposes.”
United States v. Jose Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997). “The offense levels for these substantive offenses are governed by U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1. See U.S.S.G-App. A. Section 2B6.”
U.S.S.G. §2B6.1(a): 6 cases
United States v. Bobby Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2018). “U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a). In adopting the findings of the PSR, the district court applied three enhancements to the base level, two of which Fillmore now challenges on appeal.”
United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001). “To calculate Maung’s prison sentence, the district court started with a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), which applies to convictions for altering or removing motor vehicle VINs or trafficking in vehicles with .”
United States v. Scotty Joe Uder, 98 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 1996). “By contrast, in the present case, Uder's base offense level would have been 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), regardless of the value of the loss taken into account for sentencing purposes.”
United States v. Ralph Gail Walker, 931 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1991). “” U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment, (n.l). It is clear from the comments that the revised guideline does not apply to all “organized criminal activity.”
United States v. Michael W. White, 579 F. App'x 942 (11th Cir. 2014).
U.S.S.G. §2B6.1(b)(1): 5 cases
United States v. Scotty Joe Uder, 98 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 1996). “By contrast, in the present case, Uder's base offense level would have been 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), regardless of the value of the loss taken into account for sentencing purposes.”
United States v. Exarhos, 135 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Rippy, 38 F. App'x 203 (6th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Exarhos, 135 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Scotty Joe Uder (8th Cir. 1996).
U.S.S.G. §2B6.1(b)(2): 14 cases
United States v. Sharon Saunders, 318 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2003). “” 5 See U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment. We, also, have not particularized the appropriate test for applying the enhancement.”
United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001). “To calculate Maung’s prison sentence, the district court started with a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), which applies to convictions for altering or removing motor vehicle VINs or trafficking in vehicles with .”
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “2003) (collecting cases for a parallel provision, U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2), and stating that “the Commission must have intended that only fences, who by definition are not thieves themselves, receive the enhancement”); United States v.”
United States v. Vigil, 644 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2011). “2003) (finding that a prerequisite to the application of a similar enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2) “is that the defendant personally received and sold stolen property”); 2 United States v.”
United States v. John L. St. Cyr, 977 F.2d 698 (1st Cir. 1992). “1 (discussing defendant's engagement in a gambling business); U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(b)(2) (discussing an enhancement for being “in the business of receiving and selling" stolen motor vehicles or parts).”
U.S.S.G. §2B6.1(b)(3): 3 cases
United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001). “To calculate Maung’s prison sentence, the district court started with a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), which applies to convictions for altering or removing motor vehicle VINs or trafficking in vehicles with .”
United States v. Ralph Gail Walker, 931 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1991). “” U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment, (n.l). It is clear from the comments that the revised guideline does not apply to all “organized criminal activity.”
United States v. Sordillo, 38 F. App'x 32 (1st Cir. 2002).
U.S.S.G. §2B6.1(b)(l): 7 cases
United States v. Myat Maung, 267 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2001). “To calculate Maung’s prison sentence, the district court started with a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1(a), which applies to convictions for altering or removing motor vehicle VINs or trafficking in vehicles with .”
United States v. Ralph Gail Walker, 931 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1991). “” U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1, comment, (n.l). It is clear from the comments that the revised guideline does not apply to all “organized criminal activity.”
United States v. Edward Avery Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir. 1992). “§ 511 is U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1 which provides a base offense level of eight.”
United States v. Daniel Michael Tropiano, 50 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1995). “His presentence report (“PSR”) assigned a base offense level of eight, under U.S.S.G. § 2B6.1. It bumped that up six levels under U.”
United States v. Billy Talley, 194 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.