applies to Freeman’s conduct Freeman contends that “the circumstance relied upon by the court, that [Freeman] was planning on robbing [the undercover agent], was not one which is ‘not identified in the guidelines’ ” because § 2K2.1(b)(6) covers the use or possession of a firearm in combination with another offense. He argues, in other words, that the planned robbery of the undercover agent was just the sort of “other offense” contemplated by the Guidelines. Freeman is correct that § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) does not apply to conduct that could be punished by another Guidelines provision because, in such a situation, the conduct at issue cannot be considered “a circumstance that the Commission has not identified in the guidelines.” See United States v. Waugh, 207 F.3d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). But the district court’s imposition of the §
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 without discussion that the district court erred by applying the numberofweapons enhancement to an offense underlying the defendants  924c conviction holding that application of  2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement 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 that where mandatory life sentence enhancement was the tail which wags the dog of defendants firearm conviction which raised constitutional due process issues the district court had authority to consider a downward departure under section 5k20 of the guidelines