1 . While I must begin the sentencing process by "correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range,” Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), I may reject a sentence within the range "because a sentence within the Guidelines fails to reflect the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors or 'because the case warrants a different sentence regardless.’ ” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 164 (4th Cir.2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). 2 . Though the defendant's wife owned the guns seized from the house, the defendant at the least constructively possessed them, and therefore may share his wife’s status as a collector. See United States v. Mojica, 214 F.3d 1169, 1171-74 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Moit, 100 F.3d 605, 606-07
holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant holding that the defendants sentence had been improperly enhanced where there was no evidence that the defendant constructively possessed or exercised control over the weapon holding that a defendant who had constructively possessed a shotgun that was owned by his brother and used solely for lawful sporting purposes was entitled to a reduction under ussg  2k21b2 holding that a defendant who had maintained his fathers gun collection at his home deserved a reduction under ussg  2k21b2 holding that a defendant possessed a dangerous weapon for purposes of ussg  2dllbl when law enforcement discovered a shotgun in the defendants home after the completion of the crimes