Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01164/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jay David Finders
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. FI LED 

U-oited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 5 1990 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAY DAVID FINDERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1164 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-22) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Jay David Finders pleaded guilty to one count of possessing 

an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 u.s.c. §§ 586l(d) and 

5871. He was sentenced by the district court to eighteen months 

imprisonment. Finders appeals the sentence and contends it is an 

improper application of the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

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

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1164 Document: 010110064847 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
The guidelines that apply to Finder's offense are found in 

section 2K2.1 (formerly 2K2.2, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Appendix C, amendment 189 (Nov. 1989)) 

which provides for a base level of twelve, to be reduced by six 

levels if "the defendant obtained or possessed the firearm solely 

for sport, recreation or collection." u.s.s.G. § 2K2.l(b)(l) 

(formerly§ 2K2.2(b)(3)). 

A district court's findings of fact in applying the Sentencing Guidelines are entitled to due deference and should be upheld 

unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Keys, 899 F.2d 983, 

988 (10th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the defendant has the burden of 

proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is entitled 

to the reduction. United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 

(10th Cir. 1990). Based on the testimony presented, the district 

court found that Finders had not met his burden of proof and 

denied the six-level reduction. R. Vol. II at 46. Finders 

contends that this finding was in error. We disagree. 

The commentary accompanying§ 2K2.1 states that in determining whether a reduction is appropriate, 

[r]elevant circumstances include, among others, the 

number and type of firearms (sawed-off shotguns, for 

example, have few legitimate uses) and ammunition, the 

location and circumstances of possession, the nature of 

the defendant's criminal history(~, whether involving firearms), and the extent to which possession was 

restricted by local law. 

u.s.s.G. § 2K2.l(b)(l), comment (n.1). 

The record reveals the following facts. The firearm was a 

sawed-off shotgun. Police found it lying on the front seat of 

Finders' truck. The truck's door was unlocked and the keys were 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1164 Document: 010110064847 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2 
in the ignition. When the police asked Finders why he had the 

gun, he informed them that he used it for personal protection. He 

did not mention hunting. Finders had a prior conviction involving 

a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon. Possession of a sawed-off 

shotgun is restricted under Colorado law. 1 

At trial, Finders testified that he purchased and shortened 

the weapon for hunting. He further testified that he had used 

similar weapons to hunt wild boar in California before moving to 

Colorado. He presented expert testimony that a sawed-off shotgun 

is a legitimate hunting weapon, and easier to carry through thick 

brush. Another witness testified he was present when Finders 

shortened the gun and that Finders said he did it to improve the 

gun for hunting. In addition, Finders points to the gun's nearlegal length and suggests that he mistakenly cut it too short. 2 

Finally, he argues that his statement to the police was inaccurate 

because of his drunken condition. 

However, an expert witness for the government testified that 

the primary purpose of having a sawed-off shotgun is its concealability for the commission of crime. In his opinion, sawed-off 

shotguns do not have a legitimate use for hunting. Moreover, 

Finders has lived in Colorado for three years, but has not hunted 

1 Under Colorado law, it is a felony to knowingly possess a 

"dangerous weapon," including a "short shotgun." A "short 

shotgun" is defined as having a "barrel or barrels less than 

eighteen inches long or an overall length of less than twenty-six 

inches." Colorado Revised Statutes§ 18-12-101(1) et. seq. In 

this case, the gun had a barrel length of 17 1/4 inches and an 

overall length of 25 11/16 inches. 

2 Ironically, he also claims he was unaware of an overall 

length requirement. R. Vol. II at 19. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1164 Document: 010110064847 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 3 
there. Upon careful review of the record below, we cannot say 

that the finding of the district court was clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1164 Document: 010110064847 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 4