Sentencing enhancement vacated for lack of firearm findings

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a felon-in-possession defendant’s 84-month sentence, holding that the district court failed to make the factual findings necessary to support a homicide-related sentencing enhancement under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The defendant was convicted of possessing firearms as a felon following a 2016 confrontation that resulted in the death of another man. Evidence showed the defendant possessed two shotguns and a revolver during the incident. Although the indictment identified only the two shotguns, the revolver was the weapon used in the fatal shooting. The defendant was later convicted in North Carolina state court of voluntary manslaughter. At resentencing in the federal case, the district court applied a Guidelines cross-reference that increased the offense level from 14 to 29 by treating the conduct as a homicide-related offense.

The 4th Circuit explained that the enhancement applies only when a firearm cited in the offense of conviction is used or possessed in connection with another offense. That requirement created a problem because the revolver used in the shooting was not identified in the indictment and therefore did not clearly qualify as a firearm cited in the offense of conviction. The shotguns were identified in the indictment, but the district court never explained whether those firearms facilitated the homicide or otherwise satisfied the enhancement’s requirements.

According to the appellate court, the district court failed to specify which firearm supported the enhancement and did not make findings establishing how the relevant firearm was connected to the voluntary manslaughter offense. While the government argued that the shotguns escalated the confrontation and facilitated the killing, the court emphasized that those factual determinations must be made by the sentencing judge and could not be supplied by the appellate court.

The panel also noted concerns regarding the district court’s failure to clearly identify the applicable Guidelines range, fully explain the sentence imposed and address certain arguments raised by the defendant. Although it did not resolve those issues, the court concluded that they further supported the need for a new sentencing hearing.

The 10 page opinion is U.S. v. Revels, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-185-26.