law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of parties.’ ” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 58, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) (quoting Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 259, 62 S.Ct. 510, 86 L.Ed. 832 (1942)). We therefore "conduct [our] own examination” of the merits underlying the parties arguments. Id. 2 . The Commission has since adopted its proposed amendment to the definition of “crime of violence" in the Guidelines. Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) Gan. 8, 2016), at ii, http://www.ussc.gov/sites/ default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20160108_RF.pdf (effective Aug. 1, 2016). 3 . Pawlak argues that the confidential informant was not a buyer or recipient of the firearms. But we need not resolve wheth (10th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Richardson, 427 Fed.Appx.
holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that the defendants actions fell under the unlawful possession prong where the defendant transferred at least one firearm to a known felon holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful holding that the government failed to prove the defendants actions fell under the unlawful possession prong bjecause the government failed to present any evidence that the defendant knew that his conduct would result in a firearm being transferred to an individual falling under the narrow guidelines definition of an individual in unlawful possession