Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02953/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02953-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Laney
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2953

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Ronald Laney, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 23, 2008

 Filed: February 4, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Ronald Laney pleaded guilty to being a

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Following

preparation of a presentence report (PSR), Laney objected to the calculation of his

base offense level, asserting that he possessed the firearm solely for lawful sporting

purposes. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) (if defendant possessed all ammunition and

firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes, and did not unlawfully discharge or

otherwise unlawfully use such ammunition or firearms, decrease offense level to 6).

The district court did not apply section 2K2.1(b)(2), and sentenced Laney to 15

months in prison, followed by 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, Laney argues

that the district court erred because it found that the firearm was used solely for

Appellate Case: 07-2953 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398419
-2-

hunting purposes, but nevertheless failed to decrease his offense level. In response,

the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement.

Alternatively, the government argues that the district court did not find the gun was

used solely for hunting purposes, and that the court’s refusal to grant the reduction

was within its discretion.

We decline to address the enforceability of the appeal waiver because the

transcript of the change-of-plea hearing was not made a part of the record on appeal.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N) (before accepting plea of guilty, court must

determine that defendant understands terms of any plea agreement provision waiving

right to appeal); United States v. Mink, 476 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir. 2007) (government

bears burden of proving that defendant’s appeal is barred by waiver).

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court’s relevant

factual findings are insufficient, and we remand the case with instructions to the

district court to clarify its findings as to whether the firearm was possessed solely for

lawful sporting purposes and not discharged unlawfully or otherwise used unlawfully.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (when defendant objects to portions of PSR district

court must rule on dispute or find that ruling is unnecessary); United States v. Vinton,

429 F.3d 811, 817 (8th Cir. 2005) (if there are objections to PSR, district court must

make findings of fact and rule on those objections); cf. United States v. Randolph, 101

F.3d 607, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1996) (reversing and remanding for resentencing when

district court failed to explain how it determined disputed drug quantity).

We vacate Laney’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with

this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2953 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398419