Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10254/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damoni Owens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DAMONI OWENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-37-1

Before WIENER, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, 

and the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence. DefendantAppellant appeals only the application of a four-level enhancement under 

Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines (“Section 2K2.1”), which 

applies “[i]f the defendant . . . used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in 

connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6). The district 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10254 Document: 00515402813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2020
No. 19-10254

2

court applied the enhancement based on Defendant-Appellant’s alleged

participation in the burglary in which the firearm giving rise to his conviction 

was stolen. Defendant-Appellant objected, arguing that there was no evidence 

that he (as opposed to his co-conspirator) took the gun during the burglary. On 

appeal, he argues that when the felony justifying the application of the 

enhancement in question is a burglary, the enhancement only applies if the 

defendant himself “finds and takes a firearm.” See id. cmt. n.14(B).

The parties dispute whether the district court made an explicit factual 

determination regarding Defendant-Appellant’s participation in the burglary. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that it is unclear what factual 

determination the district court reached. 

At the sentencing hearing, the government responded to DefendantAppellant’s objection that there was insufficient evidence that he was “party” 

to the burglary by arguing that Defendant-Appellant himself took the gun. The 

district court interrupted the government’s argument to comment that the 

evidence could also show that Defendant-Appellant “was participating with 

someone who stole [the handgun], cooperated with someone, participating, 

conspiring with.” The government agreed, but continued to insist, “I think it’s 

more probable than not [that Defendant-Appellant] stole it, and a big part of it 

is because I just don’t find him to be credible. . . .” 

After hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court found that the 

enhancement applied. In making that finding, the court opined:

My finding is that the specific offense characteristic set out in 

Paragraph 251 of the third addendum is appropriate because it 

appears, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant, 

along with Vernon Williams, were in the business of burglarizing 

1 Paragraph 25 states: “The defendant and Williams stole the firearm listed in the 

offense of conviction during a Burglary of a Habitation on August 18, 2014. USSG 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a 4 level increase if the defendant used or possessed any firearm 

or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” 

Case: 19-10254 Document: 00515402813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2020
No. 19-10254

3

places in series and that the information contained in the original 

presentence report at Paragraphs 53 and 54 make it clear that 

these two individuals were engaged in common activity of 

burglarizing places, one on August 18 at Paragraph 53 that is 

misnumbered in the third addendum as Paragraph 54, and in 

actual Paragraph 54, there is in the original presentence report 

additional information supporting the fact that [the co-defendant]

and the defendant were engaged in this behavior together, and it’s 

clear that [Defendant-Appellant] was aware of the conduct of his 

co-defendant and is properly chargeable with what he did as well 

because they were involved in a common endeavor and, also, for 

the reasons articulated by [the prosecutor] on behalf of the 

government. So the objection to the inclusion of the four points in 

Paragraph 25 of the third addendum is overruled.

It is reasonable, given the government’s argument, to conclude that the district 

court found that Defendant-Appellant himself took the handgun. But it is also 

reasonable to read the same language and conclude that the district court 

found only that Defendant-Appellant was “properly chargeable” with the 

conduct of his associate, who himself stole the gun. 

We are disinclined to reach a determination regarding the legality of 

applying the relevant enhancement in situations like these absent more clarity 

from the district court, which is charged with making findings of fact. See 

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)

(explaining that a district court’s interpretation or application of the 

Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo, while its factual findings are 

reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Sarasti, 869 F.2d 805, 807 

(5th Cir. 1989) (“Credibility determinations are peculiarly within the province 

of the trier-of-fact, and we will not disturb the sentencing judge’s findings.”).

We therefore VACATE Defendant-Appellant’s sentence and REMAND this 

case for the limited purposes of (1) factfinding regarding how the firearm in 

question came to be in Defendant-Appellant’s possession; and (2) resentencing.

Case: 19-10254 Document: 00515402813 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2020