U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) After the 2024 Amendment: A Scratched-but-Legible Serial Number Does Not Trigger the Enhancement

I. Introduction

United States v. Eddie Flournah, Jr. (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2026) is a non-published Eleventh Circuit decision addressing two sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 applied to a defendant convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The United States (Plaintiff-Appellee) defended the guideline calculations; Eddie Lee Flournah, Jr. (Defendant-Appellant) challenged them.

The case centered on two issues:

  1. Whether a loaded pistol carried in the defendant’s waistband while he possessed narcotics with intent to distribute was possessed “in connection with” another felony offense for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
  2. Whether the four-level serial-number enhancement under the 2024 version of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) applies when the serial number is scratched but still readable to the unaided eye, and when the government relies primarily on a photograph that makes part of the number appear illegible.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the “in connection with” enhancement but vacated and remanded because the government did not prove that the serial number was illegible or unrecognizable to the naked eye as required by the amended guideline text.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The court resolved the two guideline disputes as follows:

  • § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) affirmed: The district court did not clearly err in finding that Flournah’s loaded pistol (carried in his waistband), together with an extra magazine, had the potential to facilitate his drug-trafficking conduct (possession with intent to distribute). That potential was enough to satisfy the “in connection with” requirement.
  • § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) vacated: Under the 2024 amendment, the enhancement applies only if the serial number was modified such that the original information is rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye. Here, the government’s own record established that an officer could read the complete serial number and confirm it via an ATF trace report. A photograph suggesting partial illegibility was insufficient, especially given acknowledged photographic distortions. The government therefore failed to meet its burden, making application of the enhancement clearly erroneous.

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART for resentencing without the serial-number enhancement.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Standards of review and guideline interpretation

  • United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2020): Cited for the general abuse-of-discretion framework governing procedural reasonableness review. In this case, that framework set the appellate posture: the panel scrutinized whether the guideline calculations were correctly made and supported by the record.
  • United States v. Hernandez, 167 F.4th 1113 (11th Cir. 2026): Cited for the division between de novo review of legal interpretation and application of guidelines to facts, versus clear-error review of factfinding. This distinction mattered because the “in connection with” conclusion was treated as factfinding reviewed only for clear error.
  • United States v. James, 135 F.4th 1329 (11th Cir. 2025): Cited both for the clear-error standard as applied to the “in connection with” determination and for the substantive “touchstone” of the inquiry—whether the firearm had the potential to facilitate the other felony. The panel relied on James to frame the inquiry broadly and to defer absent clear error.

2. The meaning of “in connection with” under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

  • United States v. Irons, 176 F.4th 1275 (11th Cir. 2026): Used to emphasize that the “in connection with” pathways are “expansive.” Irons supplied the operative formulations: potential emboldening, ability to use to complete the offense, or availability if law enforcement thwarts the offense.
  • United States v. Brooks, 112 F.4th 937 (11th Cir. 2024): Quoted via Irons for examples of how a firearm may satisfy the “in connection with” requirement—particularly the concepts of emboldenment and availability for use if confronted.
  • United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir. 2013): Cited for the proposition that a firearm can be “in connection with” another offense when evidence shows the defendant could have used it to protect criminal activity. The panel used Carillo-Ayala to support the protective-function theory common in drug cases (protection of stash and proceeds).
  • United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2019): Cited for the relevance of whether a firearm is loaded and possessed with drugs in public. Bishop helped the court treat the defendant’s carry position (waistband), readiness (loaded), and context (public possession while engaged in trafficking conduct) as indicia of facilitation potential.

3. Burden of proof at sentencing (relevant to the serial-number issue)

  • United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779 (11th Cir. 2007): Cited for the rule that the government bears the burden to prove facts supporting an enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. This precedent directly powered the panel’s conclusion that the government’s proof—especially in light of contrary evidence that the serial number was readable—was insufficient under the amended text.

4. Second Amendment challenge foreclosed (not central to the sentencing holding)

  • United States v. Carter, 180 F.4th 1285 (11th Cir. 2026); United States v. Hicks, 166 F.4th 933 (11th Cir. 2026); United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887 (11th Cir. 2025): Cited in a footnote to note binding circuit precedent foreclosed the defendant’s facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). While not part of the remand calculus, the footnote situates the appeal’s permissible scope given circuit law.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Affirmance of the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement (“in connection with”)

The court treated the “in connection with” conclusion as a factual determination, emphasizing deference under clear-error review (as framed by United States v. James). The decisive logic was not that Flournah actually used the gun during a drug sale, but that the gun’s presence and accessibility created a facilitation potential.

Several facts supported that potential:

  • The pistol was loaded and carried in the waistband, giving immediate access.
  • The defendant also carried an extra magazine, and the panel quantified the readiness: 34 rounds of ammunition on his person.
  • The panel invoked United States v. Bishop to treat “loaded” and “in public” possession alongside drugs as relevant to facilitation.
  • The government offered testimony that drug distributors commonly carry firearms to guard against robbery—supporting the inference that the gun was available to protect the stash or facilitate distribution activity.

Applying United States v. Irons and United States v. Carillo-Ayala, the panel concluded the gun could protect the drugs, embolden the defendant, or be used if an encounter (including law enforcement interdiction) threatened the trafficking offense. That sufficed for “in connection with.”

2. Vacatur of the § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) serial-number enhancement (the 2024 amendment)

The opinion’s most concrete doctrinal contribution lies in its application of the 2024 guideline text. The court drew a sharp line between: (a) evidence that a serial number looks unclear in a photograph, and (b) proof that the number is actually illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye, which is what the 2024 version requires.

The panel anchored its reasoning in three moves:

  1. Textual pivot from 2023 to 2024: The court contrasted the earlier language (“altered or obliterated serial number” in § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) (2023)) with the amended requirement that the serial number be modified so that the original information is “rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye” (§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) (2024)). That comparison signaled that not every physical defacement qualifies; the defacement must cross an illegibility threshold.
  2. Government’s proof failed the “unaided eye” test: Although the government proffered a photograph appearing to show partial illegibility, the record established (and the government conceded) the seizing officer could read the complete serial number and verify it using an ATF trace report. If an officer can read it with the naked eye, the enhancement’s condition—illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye—is not met.
  3. Burden allocation and evidentiary reliability: Citing United States v. Perez-Oliveros, the panel held the government bore the burden of proof by a preponderance. The government itself acknowledged that photographic artifacts (“composition, angle of view, pixilation, light refraction, lens aberration”) can erase critical detail. Given that concession, a photo suggesting illegibility could not overcome affirmative evidence of actual legibility.

The conclusion followed: applying the enhancement was clearly erroneous, requiring vacatur and resentencing without it.

C. Impact

1. Practical sentencing impact: what the government must show under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) (2024)

The decision reinforces a proof-driven threshold under the amended guideline: the government must establish actual illegibility or unrecognizability to the unaided eye, not merely that the serial number is scratched, defaced, or difficult to discern in a photograph. In practice, this encourages:

  • Production of the firearm at sentencing (or similarly reliable inspection-based evidence), rather than reliance on low-quality photographs.
  • Clear testimony addressing whether the serial number could be read by normal vision—because the standard is expressly “to the unaided eye.”
  • Attention to concessions and internal inconsistencies: if law enforcement ran an ATF trace using the number, that fact may strongly undermine any claim of illegibility.

2. Doctrinal impact: narrowing what “modified” means after the 2024 amendment

While the panel did not issue a broad, published rule, its application indicates that “modified” is not a standalone trigger; it is tied to the specific consequence: the modification must render the original serial information illegible or unrecognizable. This meaningfully limits the enhancement compared to the older “altered or obliterated” phrasing that could plausibly be argued to capture a wider set of defacements.

3. Continued breadth of “in connection with” for drug-and-gun scenarios

The court’s affirmance under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) continues the Eleventh Circuit’s broad approach reflected in United States v. Irons, United States v. Brooks, United States v. James, and United States v. Carillo-Ayala. The opinion underscores that immediate-access carry of a loaded firearm during trafficking-related conduct will often satisfy the enhancement even without active brandishing or discharge.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

“In connection with” (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B))
This does not require proof the gun was fired or brandished. It is enough if the gun could have helped the other felony—e.g., by protecting drugs, deterring theft, emboldening the offender, or being available during an attempted interruption.
“Potential to facilitate”
A firearm can satisfy the enhancement if its presence could make the other crime easier or safer to commit. The court treats ready access (waistband carry), being loaded, and drug-trafficking context as strong indicators of this potential.
“Illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye” (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) (2024))
The serial-number enhancement now depends on whether a normal person, without special tools, can read or recognize the original serial information. If officers can read the number and run an ATF trace, that is powerful evidence the number is not illegible to the naked eye.
“Preponderance of the evidence”
The government must show an enhancement is more likely true than not true. If its own evidence shows the serial number was readable, a photo suggesting otherwise is unlikely to meet this burden.
“Clear error” review
On appeal, factual findings stand unless the appellate court is left with a strong conviction a mistake was made. That deference helped the government on the “in connection with” issue, but did not save the serial-number enhancement because the record affirmatively contradicted illegibility.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Eddie Flournah, Jr. delivers two principal takeaways. First, it reaffirms the Eleventh Circuit’s expansive understanding of “in connection with” under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B): a loaded, readily accessible firearm carried alongside trafficking conduct may support the enhancement based on facilitation potential. Second—and most significantly—it applies the 2024 amendment to § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) in a way that limits the serial-number enhancement to cases of true naked-eye illegibility or unrecognizability. Where the serial number is scratched but still readable (and was in fact read and traced), the enhancement cannot stand, and the government’s reliance on a photograph that obscures detail will not satisfy its burden of proof.