Adopting a PSR and “Generally Clear” Reasons Suffice for Consecutive Sentences; No Fact-by-Fact Proof Required for §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) on Plain-Error Review

Introduction

In United States v. Jason Matthew Rincones (6th Cir. July 15, 2026), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 126-month felon-in-possession sentence where the district court (1) applied the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using/possessing a firearm “in connection with another felony offense,” and (2) ordered the federal sentence to run consecutively to any state sentence imposed for parole violations.

The case turns less on novel substantive law than on two recurring sentencing issues: (i) how appellate courts treat guideline factfinding when the defendant forfeits objections and must proceed under plain-error review, and (ii) what constitutes an adequate explanation for imposing a consecutive sentence—particularly when the court adopts a presentence report (PSR) referencing U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) and gives a “generally clear” rationale tied to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed on both issues.

  • § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement: Because Rincones withdrew/abandoned his objection in the district court, he faced plain-error review. The record (including a jail call and the recovery of the firearm with a laser attached) made it “surely plausible” that he pointed the pistol—not merely a laser dot—supporting Michigan felonious assault and thus the enhancement.
  • Consecutive sentence: Also reviewed for plain error due to lack of a contemporaneous objection, the court held the district court adequately explained consecutiveness by adopting the PSR (which cited § 5G1.3(d) and recommended a consecutive term) and by making its reasoning “generally clear” through a detailed § 3553(a) discussion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Standards of Review and Forfeiture

  • Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997): The court applied Johnson’s four-part plain-error framework because Rincones failed to preserve his objections. This citation anchors the opinion’s posture: even a plausible argument is insufficient unless the defendant can show a plain (clear/obvious) error affecting substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings.
  • United States v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 2010): Used to confirm that, when a defendant fails to object to the adequacy of sentencing explanation after the court’s end-of-hearing invitation (often referred to as the “Bostic question” practice in the Sixth Circuit), appellate review is for plain error.

Guidelines Factfinding and Deference

  • United States v. Estrada-Gonzalez, 32 F.4th 607, 614 (6th Cir. 2022): Establishes the “plausible on the record as a whole” benchmark under clear-error review for factual findings at sentencing. Rincones uses it indirectly: even if review were more forgiving than plain error, the district court’s finding that he pointed the gun was plausible and therefore would stand.
  • United States v. Lester, 98 F.4th 768, 777 (6th Cir. 2024): Cited to reinforce that where the record supports the enhancement, there is no error—let alone plain error—in applying § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
  • United States v. Alexander, 59 F.3d 36, 39 (6th Cir. 1995) and United States v. Clay, 162 F.4th 757, 779 (6th Cir. 2025): These cases support the court’s rejection of Rincones’s complaint that the district judge did not specifically recite every supporting fact (e.g., the jail call, police report) when imposing the enhancement. Together, they stand for the principle that sentencing explanations need not resemble “a mathematical proof” so long as the factual basis is clear.

State-Law Felony Used as the “Other Felony Offense”

  • People v. Nix, 836 N.W.2d 224, 230 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting People v. Avant, 597 N.W.2d 864, 869 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)): The panel used Nix/Avant to define Michigan “assault with a dangerous weapon” elements, particularly that the assault must involve a dangerous weapon and intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery. That state-law definition supplied the “another felony offense” needed for § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

Consecutive Sentences: Authority, Process, and Explanation

  • Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236-38 (2012): Confirms district courts’ discretion to impose sentences consecutive to anticipated (or other) state sentences, framing consecutiveness as a discretionary sentencing decision.
  • United States v. Gomez, 129 F.4th 954, 964 (6th Cir. 2025): Supplies the opinion’s two-step process for consecutive-sentence explanations: (1) “turn[] its attention to” the relevant policy statement/commentary, and (2) make reasoning “generally clear.”
  • United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 342 (6th Cir. 2009): Quoted for the “turn[] its attention to” requirement. Berry is also used—along with later cases—to show that adopting the PSR can satisfy the policy-statement step.
  • United States v. Hartman, 426 F. App'x 395, 399-400 (6th Cir. 2011): Cited (via Gomez) for the proposition that adopting a PSR that cites the relevant policy statement can satisfy the court’s obligation to consider it.
  • United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990, 998 (6th Cir. 2009): Provides the “generally clear” standard for the adequacy of the court’s reasoning when imposing a consecutive sentence.
  • United States v. Murphy, 591 F. App'x 377, 386 (6th Cir. 2014), United States v. Briggs, 543 F. App'x 583, 584 (6th Cir. 2013): Support the inference principle applied here: when the court thoroughly discusses § 3553(a) factors in explaining the sentence, it is typically “generally clear” that those same factors justify the consecutive structure.

Legal Reasoning

1) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B): “In Connection With Another Felony Offense”

The enhancement applies when a defendant uses or possesses a firearm “in connection with another felony offense.” The “other felony” identified was Michigan assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault).

Rincones attempted to defeat the “dangerous weapon” element by arguing he aimed only a laser dot, not the firearm. The Sixth Circuit treated this as a factual dispute about what occurred, and held the district court’s finding was supported by the record:

  • In the jail call, the victim accused him of pointing a gun at her “as if to try to kill her,” and he did not deny it, responding instead with remorse (“I can’t understand why I did what I did”).
  • Police recovered a firearm in the bushes with the laser attachment still on it, consistent with aiming the gun to project the laser.

Because Rincones failed to preserve his objection, he had to show plain error. Given the record, the panel held he could not show any error, much less a clear/obvious one.

The court also rejected the argument that the district judge erred by not specifically citing each piece of evidence at sentencing. Relying on United States v. Alexander and United States v. Clay, it emphasized that sentencing courts are not required to provide a fact-by-fact recital when the basis is evident—especially where the defendant abandoned the objection.

2) Consecutive Sentencing: § 3584(b), § 3553(a), and § 5G1.3(d)

The panel framed the consecutive-sentence decision as one governed by statute and Guidelines policy:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) requires considering the § 3553(a) factors.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5) directs courts to consider pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements.
  • U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) calls for structuring sentences to achieve “reasonable punishment for the instant offense,” and its application notes recommend considering § 3553(a) and suggest consecutiveness where the instant offense also constitutes a parole violation.

Applying United States v. Gomez, the court found both steps satisfied:

  1. Policy-statement attention: The district court reviewed and adopted the PSR, which cited § 5G1.3(d) and recommended a consecutive sentence. Under Gomez (and its reliance on Berry and Hartman), this suffices.
  2. Generally clear reasoning: The court discussed § 3553(a) at length (seriousness of the offense; extensive, violent history), then rejected concurrency as “not…appropriate given everything that we’ve talked about.” Under Johnson/Murphy/Briggs, that makes the rationale for consecutiveness “generally clear.”

Again, forfeiture pushed the claim into plain-error review, and the panel found no error at all.

Impact

  • Reinforces the consequences of abandoning sentencing objections: The opinion illustrates that withdrawing/omitting objections—especially after the court’s end-of-hearing inquiry—often converts potentially disputable guideline issues into nearly insurmountable plain-error claims on appeal.
  • Encourages reliance on the PSR for § 5G1.3(d) compliance: By treating PSR adoption as sufficient “attention” to the policy statement, the decision supports a streamlined—but still reviewable—method for meeting consecutive-sentence procedural requirements.
  • Limits “lack of detail” challenges when the basis is apparent: The holding, grounded in Alexander and Clay, signals that appellate courts will not demand itemized evidentiary recitations for guideline applications where the record is clear and the defendant failed to press the dispute.
  • Practical implication for firearm enhancements involving lasers: While not creating a laser-specific rule, the case shows that where a laser is attached to a recovered firearm, courts may readily infer the gun was used to project the laser—supporting “dangerous weapon” findings under analogous state assault statutes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-error review
A demanding appellate standard applied when a defendant did not properly preserve an argument in the trial court. The defendant must show a clear/obvious mistake that likely changed the outcome and seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of the proceeding.
Forfeiture (vs. preservation)
If a defendant does not timely object (or abandons an objection), the issue is typically forfeited and reviewed only for plain error on appeal.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “in connection with another felony offense”
A Guidelines enhancement that increases the offense level when a firearm possession is tied to a separate felony—often a state-law offense—such as an assault.
Clear-error review (factfinding)
An appellate court defers to the district court’s factual findings unless they are implausible in light of the entire record.
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentences
Consecutive sentences run back-to-back; concurrent sentences run at the same time. Federal courts decide this under § 3584(b) by considering § 3553(a) and relevant Guidelines policy statements such as § 5G1.3(d).

Conclusion

United States v. Rincones underscores two procedural realities of federal sentencing in the Sixth Circuit: (1) defendants who abandon guideline objections face the steep wall of plain-error review, under which plausible record support for the district court typically ends the appeal; and (2) a district court may adequately justify a consecutive sentence by adopting a PSR that cites U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) and by making its rationale “generally clear” through a thorough discussion of § 3553(a), without delivering a granular, evidence-by-evidence dissertation.