CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KEVIN CLARDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-5094
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:09-cr-00122-1—William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2017
Before: SILER, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Kevin Clardy argues that he has not waived the right to challenge his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), despite explicitly waiving that right in his plea agreement. We have rejected this argument multiple times, albeit in unpublished opinions. The district court likewise rejected it here. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DARRYL JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2415
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:16-cr-00083-1—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2017
Before: GUY, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Guns have the potential to make a bad situation worse. In light of that reality, the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) prescribe harsher penalties for defendants who have “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). This case principally presents the question whether that sentencing enhancement applies to Defendant-Appellant Darryl Jackson, who made two pairs of separately negotiated sales—each including one sale of a small amount of drugs, one of a gun—to a government informant in close succession, but without bringing both a gun and drugs to either sale or having reason to anticipate that the first sale would beget the second. This case also presents the question whether the district court committed plain error by failing to consider sentencing-factor manipulation as a ground to reduce Jackson’s sentence. Although we find no plain error with regard to sentencingfactor manipulation, we conclude, despite giving due deference to the district court, that Jackson did not use or possess either gun in connection with either sale of drugs within the meaning of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We thus VACATE the application of the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and REMAND this case for resentencing.