Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04080/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Deb Tregeagle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH DEB TREGEAGLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4080 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-213-J) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mat erially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fe d. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Joseph Deb Tregeagle appeals his eighteen month sentence for 

the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending 

the district court failed to give him a six-level reduction in 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court withi n the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judi cata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4080 Document: 010110222600 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 1 
accordance with United States Sentencing Commission Guideline 

§ 2K2.l(b)(2). Alternatively, he argues if the guideline was 

appropriately applied, it is unreasonable and in violation of the 

statutory mandate that guidelines include all circumstances of 

mitigation and aggravation. We affirm. 

The facts are not in dispute. Mr. Tregeagle pled guilty to a 

one count indictment charging that, as a convicted felon, he 

possessed a handgun in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 922(g). In a 

written statement in advance of his plea of guilty (R. I, doc. 9), 

he stipulated to a number of facts: 1) that he was convicted of 

the crime of murder in the first degree and ultimately sentenced 

to life in prison in the State of California; 2) that while 

imprisoned on that charge he escaped, was caught, and then 

convicted of the crime of escape; 3) that subsequent to his parole 

from the State of California, he obtained a handgun from his 

eighteen year old nephew and sold it to a pawnbroker in Utah. 

Mr. Tregeagle advised the district court that his only 

purpose in obtaining the weapon was to prevent his nephew from 

carrying out a threat to use the gun to commit a robbery or to 

commit suicide. The nephew confirmed that statement, and it 

remains undisputed in the record. 

At sentencing, Mr. Tregeagle's counsel maintained defendant 

had a "lawful purpose" for possessing the weapon because his 

intent was to interdict an unlawful or undesirable event. He 

relied upon U.S.S.G. § 2K2.l(b)(2) which states, "If the defendant 

... possessed . .. firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes 

or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4080 Document: 010110222600 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 2 
unlawfully use such firearms decrease the offense level 

... to level 6." The district court ruled that because 

defendant had admitted his possession of the gun was unlawful, he 

was not entitled to the decrease in the offense level. This 

appeal followed. 

In this court, defendant presents a slightly different 

argument. He contends§ 2K2.l(b)(2) is ambiguous; therefore, the 

rule of lenity should apply, and he should have received the sixlevel reduction. We disagree with defendant's basic premise. 

We see nothing ambiguous about the guideline. The plain 

language of the section limits the six-level reduction to felons 

who possessed a firearm for "lawful sporting purposes or 

collection." The phrase "lawful sporting purposes" is not the 

same as "lawful purposes." It is explicitly restrictive. Sports 

enthusiasts and collectors are the only people advantaged by a 

six-level reduction. The Commission did not chose to apply that 

mitigation to any other person, and it did not anticipate any 

other lawful purpose. We can see no reason to presume to the 

contrary. That interpretation is consistent with the conclusion 

reached by other courts. United States v. Cousens, 942 F.2d 800, 

803 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Prator, 939 F.2d 844, 846 

(9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Buss, 928 F.2d 150, 152 (5th 

Cir. 1991); United States v. Wyckoff, 918 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir. 

1990); United States v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 1989); 

United States v . Smeathers, 884 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Mr. Tregeagle relies upon Commentary 10 to§ 2K2.l(b)(2) to 

suggest an ambiguity in the guideline, but we are not persuaded. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4080 Document: 010110222600 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 3 
Commentary 10 refers to "lawful sporting purposes" and not "lawful 

purposes." It does not suggest the Commission's intent in 

providing a six-level reduction was any broader than the guideline 

itself provides. 

We are equally unpersuaded that the guideline is inconsistent 

with the statutory mandate. It would appear the Commission saw no 

situation in which the possession of a firearm by a felon could 

not be harmful. That it perceived only two situations, both 

facially benign, in which possession of a firearm by a felon could 

be mitigated does not indicate the Commission failed in its duty. 

Indeed, the rare and remarkable situation presented by this 

case is one which could have been dealt with by a downward 

departure. The district court was not asked to depart, and it did 

not do so. From the record, however, we assume because of remarks 

made by the court at sentencing departure would not have been 

granted. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4080 Document: 010110222600 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 4