Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02885/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02885-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nile L. Cunningham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2885

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Nile L. Cunningham, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

Filed: January 29, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nile L. Cunningham appeals the thirty-seven month sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and to being a person convicted of a misdemeanor

crime of domestic violence in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(9). He argues the district court erroneously calculated his offense level and

criminal history category based on a flawed finding as to when his possession of the

Appellate Case: 06-2885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272362
-2-

firearms began and imposed an unreasonable sentence after improperly applying the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). We affirm.

In calculating Cunningham’s base offense level under the advisory United

States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines), the district court found he

possessed the firearms within ten years of a 1991 Nebraska state court sentence (five

years of probation) imposed after he pleaded guilty to felony manufacturing of a

controlled substance. As a result of including the 1991 conviction in the calculation,

Cunningham’s base level was set at level twenty rather than level fourteen; he was not

eligible for a “lawful sporting purpose” reduction which, if he otherwise qualified,

would have capped his base offense level at level six; and he received an additional

criminal history point, which placed him at the lowest end of criminal history category

III. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4), (b)(2), 4A1.1, 4A1.2(e)(2) (2005). 

"On appeal of a sentence, we review de novo the district court's application of

the sentencing guidelines and its factual findings for clear error." United States v.

Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 739-40 (8th Cir. 2006). Cunningham does not challenge the

district court’s application of the Guidelines. The 1991 conviction can be used in

calculating Cunningham’s sentence if the firearm offenses commenced within ten

years of the date his 1991 sentence was imposed. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 (establishing,

when read with § 4A1.2(e)(2), a ten-year period for certain offenses), referenced in

§ 2K2.1 cmt. n.12 (noting applicable felony convictions for establishing base offense

level for firearm offenses are those receiving criminal history points under § 4A1.1).

His firearm offenses commenced when he first engaged in any “act or omission”

occurring “during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that

offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that

offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (enumerating the factors considered in determining

“relevant conduct”), cited in § 4A1.2 cmt. n.8 (noting “commencement of the instant

offense” includes any relevant conduct under § 1B1.3); see also United States v.

Rosenkrans, 236 F.3d 976, 977-78 (8th Cir. 2000) (applying the “relevant conduct”

Appellate Case: 06-2885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272362
-3-

definition in the Guidelines to determine the “commencement” date of the “instant

offense”).

Cunningham challenges the district court’s factual finding he possessed

firearms within ten years of 1991. The evidence at sentencing showed on June 20,

2005, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) special agents recovered four firearms

from a kitchen cupboard in Cunningham’s residence. One of the firearms, a

combination .410/.22 caliber shotgun/rifle was purchased by Cunningham’s ex-wife

while they were still married; they divorced sometime in 1999. Three of the firearms,

a 12-gauge shotgun, a 20-gauge youth-model shotgun, and a .22 caliber rifle were

purchased in 2000 by Cunningham’s current wife. When informed by ATF special

agents it was unlawful to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, Cunningham’s

current wife stated, “I didn’t realize how much trouble you could get into until after

I had done it.” In addition, Cunningham admitted to the ATF special agents he:

coerced his current wife into purchasing the firearms, knew the firearms were in his

house, and had used the firearms to teach his sons how to hunt with firearms. In 2000,

Cunningham’s children were ages four and six. An ATF special agent testified at

sentencing the 12-gauge shotgun would be “very difficult for a young boy or most

women to handle” as it was “full-size” and had a twenty-eight inch barrel. Given the

above, we find the district court did not commit clear error in finding a preponderance

of the evidence established Cunningham engaged in conduct relevant to the firearm

possession offense at least as early as 2000 when Cunningham coerced his wife into

purchasing three of the firearms. See United States v. Urick, 431 F.3d 300, 303 (8th

Cir. 2005) (“Possession under [18 U.S.C.] § 922(g) can be actual or constructive. . . .

While mere physical proximity to a firearm is insufficient for possession, ‘knowledge

of presence’ combined with ‘dominion over the premises in which the contraband is

concealed’ will amount to constructive possession.” (quotation omitted)).

Cunningham also claims the sentence was unreasonable because he “had not

been convicted of any crimes (aside from an insufficient funds check) since 1996,”

had not used alcohol or drugs for fifteen years, had maintained employment until

Appellate Case: 06-2885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272362
-4-

suffering a back injury, and was an important figure in the lives of his children. He

claims he only used the guns to teach his children how to hunt and two of the guns

found could have been used by children; he stated he only bow hunted. Finally, he

argues the district court relied too heavily on the importance of rendering consistent

sentences. “We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

United States v. Lee, 454 F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2006). First, the sentence imposed

was at the low end of the Guidelines range of thirty-seven to forty-six months of

imprisonment. Second, the district court expressly referenced and considered the

§ 3553(a) factors in crafting Cunningham’s sentence. Thus, we find the district court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing his sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2885 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272362