when determining the sentence for the underlying offense. An enhancement based on the sheer number of firearms involved in the offense, however, is not the same type of weapon enhancement as the one provided for in § 924(c). Rather, it reflects the Sentencing Commission’s recognition that a defendant whose offense involved three or more firearms is more dangerous than a defendant who was only accountable for one or two firearms — -just like culpability is heightened if any of the firearms were stolen or had an altered or obliterated serial number, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4). By contrast, § 924(c)(1)(A) punishes a defendant for putting a firearm to a prohibited purpose — namely, possessing it in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime or using 240-41 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). V Finally, Pineda contends that the district
holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement holding that any error by a district court in applying a sentencing enhancement is harmless if it did not change a defendants total offense level holding that because the number of weapons involved in the underlying offense to a  924c conviction is a separate type of offense conduct than that punished by  924c itself the district court did not engage in doublecounting  when it applied an  increase under  2k21bla in conjunction with the sentence for violating  924c holding that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement under the  5k20 departure provision where an enhancement under the separate guidelines provision for restraining a victim during the course of an offense would have been appropriate holding without discussion that the district court erred by applying the numberofweapons enhancement to an offense underlying the defendants  924c conviction