U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5

Use of Body Armor in Drug Trafficking Crimes and Crimes of Violence

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If—

(1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; and

(2) (apply the greater)—

(A) the offense involved the use of body armor, increase by 2 levels; or

(B) the defendant used body armor during the commission of the offense, in preparation for the offense, or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the offense, increase by 4 levels.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Definitions.—For purposes of this guideline:

"Body armor" means any product sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(35).

"Crime of violence" has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 16.

"Drug trafficking crime" has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2).

"Offense" has the meaning given that term in Application Note 1 of the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions).

"Use" means (A) active employment in a manner to protect the person from gunfire; or (B) use as a means of bartering. "Use" does not mean mere possession (e.g., "use" does not mean that the body armor was found in the trunk of the car but not used actively as protection). "Used" means put into "use" as defined in this paragraph.

2. Application of Subdivision (2)(B).—Consistent with §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), the term "defendant", for purposes of subdivision (2)(B), limits the accountability of the defendant to the defendant's own conduct and conduct that the defendant aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused.

3. Interaction with §2K2.6 and Other Counts of Conviction.—If the defendant is convicted only of 18 U.S.C. § 931 and receives an enhancement under subsection (b)(1) of §2K2.6 (Possessing, Purchasing, or Owning Body Armor by Violent Felons), do not apply an adjustment under this guideline. However, if, in addition to the count of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 931, the defendant (A) is convicted of an offense that is a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; and (B) used the body armor with respect to that offense, an adjustment under this guideline shall apply with respect to that offense.

Background: This guideline implements the directive in the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2002 (section 11009(d) of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. 107–273).

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 2003 (amendment 659). Amended effective November 1, 2004 (amendment 670).

PART C – OBSTRUCTION AND RELATED ADJUSTMENTS

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 2006 (amendment 684).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: United States v. Jabree Williams, 974 F.3d 320 (3rd Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Jabree Williams, 974 F.3d 320 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 cmt. n.1. Kelly was said to have worn body armor multiple times on Maple and Duke Streets—the eponymous location of the primary crew of drug traffickers on the South Side.”

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5, for example, adjusts the offense level upward if the offender used body armor during a drug offense, but the use of body armor during a simple drug transaction in which the offender does not anticipate any violence might have no bearing on the § 3553(a)(2)…”

United States v. Noe Juarez, 866 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 predicated on Juarez’s sale of bulletproof police vests to the Grimaldos.”

United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Discussion In this appeal, Barrett argues that the district court: (1) abused its discretion by varying his sentence upward based on improper factors; (2) improperly applied a four-level sentencing enhancement based on U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5; and (3) failed to give him his right to…”

United States v. Sainfil, 44 F.4th 99 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “1(b)(4)(B); and (2) two points for the use of body armor during a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5. Because Sainfil himself did not use physical restraints or body armor, the government had to demonstrate that his co-conspirators did so, and that their actions were…”

United States v. Donald John Bankston, III, 945 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5, cmt. n.1. In short, there are only two ways to “use” body armor under the guideline, and neither of them involves selling it.”

United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 states: If— (1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; and (2) (apply the greater)— (A) the offense involved the use of body armor, increase by 2 levels; or (B) the defendant used body armor during the commission of the…”

United States v. Lamar Johnson, 913 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 for using body armor during the commission of the offense because “use” does not mean 4 UNITED STATES V.”

United States v. Thomas Webster, 102 F.4th 471 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “It contains no mens rea requirement. The Guidelines commentary likewise defines “use” not in terms of intent, but as “active employment in a manner to protect the person from gunfire[.”

United States v. Shamah, 624 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2010). “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5(2)(A). Five levels were added because more than five robberies were committed.”

United States v. Salvador Gutierrez, 128 F.4th 299 (1st Cir. 2025). “See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 cmt. 2. The government thus argues that the inclusion of such an application note to § 3B1.”

United States v. Marc Elie Jean-Charles, 696 F. App'x 405 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence, and the offense involved the use of body armor.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— U.S.S.G. §3B1.5(1) — 5 cases

United States v. Jabree Williams, 974 F.3d 320 (3rd Cir. 2020). “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 cmt. n.1. Kelly was said to have worn body armor multiple times on Maple and Duke Streets—the eponymous location of the primary crew of drug traffickers on the South Side.”

United States v. Donald John Bankston, III, 945 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2019). “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5, cmt. n.1. In short, there are only two ways to “use” body armor under the guideline, and neither of them involves selling it.”

United States v. Lamar Johnson, 913 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2019). “The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 for using body armor during the commission of the offense because “use” does not mean 4 UNITED STATES V.”

United States v. Marc Elie Jean-Charles, 696 F. App'x 405 (11th Cir. 2017). “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence, and the offense involved the use of body armor.”

United States v. Randall Stoneman, Jr. (4th Cir. 2023).

— U.S.S.G. §3B1.5(2)(A) — 3 cases

United States v. Shamah, 624 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2010). “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5(2)(A). Five levels were added because more than five robberies were committed.”

United States v. Justin Matthew, 451 F. App'x 296 (4th Cir. 2011).

— U.S.S.G. §3B1.5(2)(B) — 7 cases

United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2009). “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 states: If— (1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; and (2) (apply the greater)— (A) the offense involved the use of body armor, increase by 2 levels; or (B) the defendant used body armor during the commission of the…”

United States v. Thomas Webster, 102 F.4th 471 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “It contains no mens rea requirement. The Guidelines commentary likewise defines “use” not in terms of intent, but as “active employment in a manner to protect the person from gunfire[.”

United States v. Chambers, 268 F. App'x 707 (10th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Douglas, 242 F. App'x 324 (6th Cir. 2007).

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.