Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02098/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fermin Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States CA>~rt C?f Appeals Tent~ C1rcu1t 

SE? 0 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FERMIN AUSTIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2098 

(D.C. No. CR-90-25HB-0l) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT• 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER, District 

Judge.·• 

Defendant Fermin Austin pled guilty on March 2, 1990, to a 

one-count indictment charging ·him with possession of an 

unregistered firearm. 26 U.S.C. §§ 586l(d) and 5871. He was 

sentenced on May 22, 1990, to a term of twenty-one months 

imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. 

He appeals that sentence. 

imposed, and affirm. 

We find no error in the sentence 

Prior to sentencing the probation officer had calculated 

Austin's base offense level in the presentence . report at 16, 

•This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

•·The Honorable G. T. Van Bebber, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2098 Document: 010110089480 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 1 
pursuant to S 2K2.l(a) (1) of the United States 

Commission Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) (Nov. 1989). 

Sentencing 

That section 

of the guidelines manual provides that offenses involving firearms 

be given a base offense level of 16. At the sentencing hearing 

defendant contended that the offense level should have been set at 

six pursuant to u.s.s.G. S 2K2.l(b) (1) because the intended use of 

the firearm in question was solely for lawful sporting purposes or 

collection. The sentencing court denied Austin's claim that the 

offense level should be reduced to six, and imposed sentence 

accordingly. 

On December 18, 1989, defendant was involved in a motor 

vehicle accident on Interstate 10 East in Dona Ana County, New 

Mexico. During the course of the accident investigation, New 

Mexico State Police Officer Norman Rhoades retrieved three firearms 

from Austin's pick-up truck at the scene of the accident. One of 

the guns was a sawed-off shotgun which defendant reportedly said 

had been modified in order to facilitate placing it underneath the 

seat of his truck. The next day a computer criminal history check 

revealed that defendant had prior felony convictions in the State 

of Texas. He was then arrested and three more firearms were found 

in his truck. None of the six firearms recovered were registered 

either to Austin or to anyone else. Defendant claims that the guns 

belonged to his brother, Lemuel Austin, in Denver City, Texas, and 

that defendant was only delivering the guns to his brother for his 

brother's collection. At the sentencing hearing, defendant denied 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2098 Document: 010110089480 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 2 
having told the officers that he was the one who had sawed off the 

shotgun. 

As stated above, defendant's base offense level was calculated 

at level 16 pursuant to u.s.s.G. § 2K2.l(a) (1) (base offense level 

for unlawful receipt, possession, or transportation of firearms or 

ammunition). The court decreased this level by two levels for 

def end ant's acceptance of res pons ibi 1 i ty pursuant to U. S. S. G. 

S 3El.1. Austin was assigned a criminal history category of III. 

The guideline sentencing range was 21 to 27 months. Defendant was 

sentenced to 21 months. (R. Vol. II at 36.) 

The sole issue on appeal is whether the sentencing court 

should have reduced defendant's offense level to level six by 

applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.l(b) (1). In reviewing the sentence 

imposed, the district court's application of the sentencing 

guidelines to the facts is entitled to due deference; however, 

legal conclusions with respect to the guidelines are subject to de 

novo review. United States v. Smith, 888 F.2d 720, 723 (10th Cir. 

1989). Finally, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to his 

entitlement to a sentencing reduction. United States v. Kirk, 894 

F.2d 1162, 1163 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Austin argues that because he was only transporting the guns 

to his brother whose intended use was to make the gun part of his 

gun collection, he is entitled to a reduced offense level of six 

pursuant to u.s.s.G. § 2K2.l(b) (1). Section 2K2.l(b) (1) provides 

as follows: 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2098 Document: 010110089480 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 3 
(b) Specific Offense Characteristics 

( 1) If the defendant obtained or possessed the 

firearm or ammunition solely for lawful 

sporting purposes or collection, decrease the 

offense level determined above to level 6. 

Under section 2K2.l(b) (1), a defendant's "actual or intended 

use of the fire arm is probably the most important factor in 

determining the sentence." Section 2K2.1, Background. Whether an 

intended lawful use exists is to be determined by the surrounding 

circumstances. Id., Application Note 2. Since Austin was only a 

bailee and had no purpose of his own for the gun, he contends that 

he should be placed in his brother's shoes for the purpose of 

determining his particular specific offense characteristic. 

However, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated as 

its basis for rejecting the requested decrease that: 

I don't care whether the guns belonged to the brother or 

to the defendant. It's a sawed-off shotgun, and to say 

that that is intended for use as a sporting weapon or 

other legitimate use as collection, I just do not believe 

that for a minute. So I think there is no room for 

reducing the offense level. 

As I say it doesn't make any difference to me 

whether the weapon belonged to the brother or to the 

defendant. The same result, as far as I would be 

concerned. The reduction would not apply. (R. Vol. II 

at 34.) 

In Kirk, we affirmed the trial court's refusal to reduce the 

defendant's offense level pursuant to section 2K2.l(b) {l) because 

the trial court found that sawed-off shotguns are not ordinarily 

considered collectibles, nor the type of gun one would mount for 

decoration. Kirk, 894 F.2d at 1164. Furthermore, the application 

note to section 2K2.l(b) (1) states that "sawed-off shotguns, for 

example, have few legitimate uses." section 2K2.1, Application 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2098 Document: 010110089480 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 4 
Note 2. While we do not decide whether or not it would ever be 

lawful for someone to have a sawed-off shotgun in a collection, we 

conclude, based on the above standards, that the sentencing court's 

findings are not clearly erroneous. 

imposed is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Defendant's sentence as 

Entered for the Court 

G. T. Van Bebber 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2098 Document: 010110089480 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 5