them. The government met this burden. The district court did not err in applying the firearms-trafficking enhancement on the basis of the recipient’s unlawful possession of firearms. Given our conclusion, we need not reach the alternative argument that the recipient’s intended use of the firearms was unlawful. V. For the reasons stated in Part III, we vacate Pawlak’s sentence. Because Paw-lak’s third-degree burglary offense is no longer a qualifying felony for purposes of Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(l), he must be re-sentenced consistent with this decision. We remand for resentencing. 1 . Although the parties agree that the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a) is unconstitutionally vague, “ 'our judgments are precedents, and the proper administration of the 523-24 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Green, 405 Fed.Appx. 860,
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 the test for foreseeability is whether the wife knew or should have known of her husbands proclivities holding that the destruction of documents which the party knew or should have known would be relevant to a pending or potential lawsuit is sanctionable holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding that the district court erred because it applied the enhancement without taking into account whether the defendant knew or should have known possession would be unlawful