Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02336/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Thomas John Wunder
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2336

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Thomas John Wunder, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2004

Filed: July 25, 2005

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Thomas John Wunder appeals the district court's1

 imposition of a four-level

sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm "in connection with another

felony offense" under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(5). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-2-

I

On April 23, 2003, police went to Melissa Behr's home to arrest Wunder for

a probation violation. When they arrived, police discovered Wunder and Kevin

Bourland in the garage. Also in the garage, police discovered an unloaded and cased

shotgun belonging to Wunder resting near a desk containing several items used in the

manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Wunder was indicted for possession of a firearm by a drug user in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He entered into a plea agreement admitting he was a daily

drug user at the time of his arrest and he knowingly possessed the shotgun which he

purchased in 2002. Wunder and the government stipulated to a base offense level of

twenty-four and a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility,

resulting in an adjusted offense level of twenty-one. The parties agreed no further

upward or downward adjustments were appropriate. The presentence investigation

report (PSR), however, recommended a four-level increase for possession of a firearm

in connection with another felony offense (manufacture of methamphetamine) under

§ 2K2.1(b)(5). 

Wunder objected to the four-level increase arguing the information in the PSR

was incomplete. He confirmed the shotgun was found in the garage near items used

in the manufacture of methamphetamine and that he obtained it in 2002 from Robert

Wolf. He claimed, however, to have immediately resold the shotgun to Bourland.

According to Wunder, Bourland possessed the shotgun until April 22, 2003, when he

brought it to Behr's residence, along with several other items, as part of a vehicle

trade. Wunder argued the shotgun was unrelated to his use or production of

methamphetamine, and its proximity to the drug paraphernalia found in the garage

was insufficient to justify the enhancement.

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-3-

At sentencing, Wunder called Behr to testify about the vehicle trade and the

shotgun. Behr testified Wunder made arrangements with Bourland to trade her

vehicle for Bourland's vehicle plus some additional items of Bourland's personal

property, including the shotgun. Behr testified the trade was to have taken place the

day Wunder and Bourland were arrested and she never saw the shotgun before then.

Based on Behr's testimony, Wunder argued the enhancement was not factually

supported.

The district court rejected Behr's testimony as incredible because she was

unable to identify the friends who put the car trade together and could not recite any

specifics of the trade, e.g., items to be taken in trade, the relative values of the cars,

etc. Further, the court found there was no evidence to indicate Behr had occasion to

notice whether the shotgun was in the garage prior to April 23, 2003. Conversely, the

court found the uncontested offense conduct set forth in the PSR sufficient to support

the enhancement. The report stated Wunder bought the shotgun in 2002, and it was

found in the garage next to several items used in the manufacture of

methamphetamine. Additionally, Behr told law enforcement Wunder had

manufactured methamphetamine five to ten times in her garage, and Wunder admitted

using, manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. The district court also

reviewed photographs of the garage showing the shotgun's location next to the desk

containing the drug-related items. 

Based on this evidence, the district court concluded the shotgun's presence was

not the result of a mistake or coincidence but was used to facilitate or had the

potential of facilitating the drug trafficking offense. Accordingly, the district court

added four-levels to arrive at an adjusted offense level of twenty-five, with a

sentencing range of 84 to 105 months. The court denied the government's motion for

an upward departure based on understated criminal history and sentenced Wunder to

105 months incarceration.

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-4-

On appeal, Wunder argues the district court's imposition of the four-level

enhancement was factually unsupported and the district court erred when it relied on

disputed factual information contained in the PSR. Wunder also argues the sentence

violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 

II

We review the district court's application of the guidelines de novo and its

findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th

Cir. 2005). A district court's finding with respect to a defendant's purpose for

possessing a firearm is a fact finding subject to clear error review. United States v.

Mack, 343 F.3d 929, 936 (8th Cir. 2003).

Section 2K2.1(b)(5) states "[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or

ammunition in connection with another felony offense . . . increase by 4 levels." "In

connection with" equates to the "in relation to" language found in 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1). United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d 685, 686 (8th Cir. 1997) (equating

§ 2K2.1(b)(5)'s reference to "in connection with" to the "in relation to" language of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)). In Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993), the

Supreme Court held 

[t]he phrase "in relation to" thus, at minimum, clarifies that the firearm

must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking

crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or

coincidence . . . . Instead, the gun at least must "facilitat[e], or ha[ve]

the potential of facilitating," the drug trafficking offense.

Our cases further hold "[t]he enhancement must be imposed unless it is clearly

improbable that [the defendant] possessed the firearm in connection with another

felony offense." United States v. Agee, 333 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing

United States v. Linson, 276 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2002)).

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-5-

Wunder stipulated he purchased the shotgun in 2002, he knowingly possessed

it at the time of his arrest, and it was discovered in his garage in close proximity to

several items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Wunder also admitted

he was a regular user of methamphetamine, had distributed methamphetamine, and

had manufactured methamphetamine in the garage. Behr confirmed Wunder had used

her garage on five to ten occasions to manufacture methamphetamine. Similarly, the

photographs confirmed the shotgun's close proximity to the drug-related items when

it was discovered. After reviewing this undisputed evidence, the district court

concluded 

What is, I think, of evidentiary value is the offense conduct in the

Presentence Report that is – has not been contested by the Defendant.

The first is that this weapon was transferred from a felon named Robert

Wolf to the Defendant. Defendant was identified in a six-photograph

show as the person to whom Wolf sold the gun, and that was in the fall

of 2002. It ends up in a garage within reaching distance of where

methamphetamine was manufactured a number of times, and in which

methamphetamine materials to make methamphetamine were found

stored in a drawer. And that happened on April 23rd, 2003. 

Sent. Tr. at 27.

Wunder, however, contends the shotgun was present in the garage by

coincidence and had no connection to his use, distribution and manufacture of

methamphetamine. He contends after buying the shotgun in 2002, he immediately

resold it to Bourland and did not see it again until Bourland brought it to the garage

as part of the vehicle trade. Wunder argues this explanation creates a factual dispute

making the district court's application of the enhancement improper. We disagree.

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-6-

It is well-established 

Once a defendant objects to the presentence report, the court must either

make a finding as to whether the disputed fact exists or state that it will

not take the disputed fact into account. If the sentencing court chooses

to make a finding with respect to the disputed facts, it must do so on the

basis of evidence, and not the presentence report. 

United States v. Burke, 80 F.3d 314, 316 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v.

Greene, 41 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original).

We conclude, however, the undisputed facts relied on by the district court are

sufficient to support the enhancement. Thus, Wunder's claim of error involves

whether the district court properly rejected his explanation for the shotgun's presence.

Wunder presented Behr's testimony to show the shotgun was in the garage by

coincidence but the district court found her testimony incredible. 

The Court finds the witness Melissa Behr to be incredible. She didn't

have any idea about this car trade, what the dollar figures were, what

was going to happen, what was going to be taken in trade; wouldn't say

who the friends were that put the trade together. There's no evidence

that she was out in her garage and would have had the occasion to see

the gun. I just find her to be a witness that doesn't have much to offer

in this case. 

Sent. Tr. at 27.

A district court's credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on

appeal. United States v. Martin, 28 F.3d 742, 745-46 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation

omitted). In this instance, we find no reason to question the district court's credibility

determination. Accordingly, we conclude the district court's imposition of the

enhancement was not clearly erroneous. 

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-7-

III

Next, Wunder argues the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights

under Blakely, a claim governed by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Under Booker, we consider whether Wunder's

sentence, imposed under a mandatory sentencing scheme, is erroneous. See United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Because Wunder first raised

Blakely in proceedings before this court we review his sentence for plain error.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 549.

Plain error review is governed by the four-part test of United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 732-36 (1993): 

before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there

must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.

If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its

discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67

(1997)).

The first two Olano factors are satisfied here – the district court erred by

applying the guidelines as mandatory and the error is plain. Id. As for the third

factor, Wunder must show a "reasonable probability that he would have received a

more favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated by making the Guidelines

advisory." Id. at 551-52. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there

is nothing to indicate a reasonable probability Wunder would have received a more

favorable sentence but for the Booker error.

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003
-8-

IV

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2336 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/25/2005 Entry ID: 1932003