Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02113/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deven W. Race
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-2113

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Deven W. Race,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Western District of Missouri. 

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: January 11, 2010

 Filed: February 1, 2010

________________

Before GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and JARVEY,1

 District Judge.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Deven Race appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient 

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Appellate Case: 09-2113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629823
evidence to sustain his conviction; and (2) the district court2

 improperly applied a

sentence enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”)

§2K2.1(b)(6). We affirm.

Sufficiency of the evidence. We “review the sufficiency of the evidence de

novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving

conflicts in the government’s favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that

support the verdict. This standard of review is strict; we will uphold the verdict if

there is any interpretation of the evidence that could lead a reasonable-minded jury to

find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Cole, 525 F.3d

656, 661 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we

conclude the evidence is sufficient to show Race possessed a firearm. Race’s codefendant Theron Davis testified that Race brought the shotgun to Davis’s house and

loaded it with ammunition before the carjacking. The shotgun was used in a

carjacking in which Race participated, according to both the victim and Race’s codefendant. The shotgun was found sitting across the center console of the car, right

next to Race who was in the front passenger seat. Race told the police that he handled

the gun and that his DNA would be on it. This evidence is sufficient to sustain Race’s

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The sentencing enhancement. We also conclude the district court properly

imposed the four-level enhancement under USSG §2K2.1(b)(6) based on Race’s

participation in the carjacking which precipitated his arrest. We review a district

court’s factual findings regarding enhancements for clear error. United States v. Pate,

518 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Based on the evidence

2

 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-2113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629823
presented by the government during the trial, we find no clear error in the district

court’s finding that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

Race possessed the shotgun in connection with the carjacking.3

 At trial, both the

victim and Race’s co-defendant testified that Race participated in the carjacking, and

the co-defendant testified that Race provided the shotgun for the carjacking. The

shotgun was recovered from the stolen car Race occupied when he was arrested

shortly after the carjacking. This is sufficient evidence from which the district court

could conclude that Race possessed the shotgun in connection with the carjacking. 

Race argues that the application of the enhancement based on conduct of which

Race was acquitted was improper. However, “[t]he sentencing court is not prohibited

from considering uncharged or acquitted conduct.” United States v. Whiting, 522

F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2008)(citations omitted). Indeed, we have routinely upheld

sentencing enhancements based on uncharged or acquitted conduct. See, e.g., United

States v. Howe, 538 F.3d 842, 855 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Canania, 532 F.3d

764, 771 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. No Neck, 472 F.3d 1048, 1055 (8th Cir.

2007). Race’s argument that there was no proof at the sentencing hearing itself is

unavailing, because at sentencing the district court is entitled to rely on evidence

3

 We disagree with Race’s contention that there was no finding by the district

court. Paragraph 20 of the Presentence Investigation Report reads in part: “Because

the defendant possessed a weapon in connection with another felony offense

(carjacking), a four-level enhancement is warranted, pursuant to 2K2.1(b)(6).” The

district court stated at the sentencing hearing: “With regard to the four-point

enhancement, I tend to agree with the line of cases allowing the court to consider

relevant conduct, even though it may not have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt

to the jury, and I’m going to allow that four-point enhancement to stand.” (Sentencing

Hearing Tr. 7.) In this context, the only sensible interpretation of the language of the

district court is that it constitutes a finding by at least a preponderance of the evidence

that Race possessed the shotgun in connection with the carjacking. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-2113 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629823
 adduced at trial. See United States v. Papakee, 573 F.3d 569, 576 (8th Cir. 2009);

Howe, 538 F.3d at 855; Whiting, 522 F.3d at 850-51.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-2113 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629823