IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30016

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAYFIELD C. WELLS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CR-28-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rayfield C. Wells was sentenced to 84 months in prison for possessing a 

firearm after having been convicted of a felony. Wells argues the district court 

erred in applying the four-level offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 

2K2.1(B)(6)(b) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony 

offense. The other felony is the Louisiana crime for the “intentional or 

criminally negligent discharge[e] of any firearm . . . where it is foreseeable that 

* 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

April 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30016 Document: 00515384282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 19-30016

2

it may result in death or great bodily harm to a human being.” LA. R.S. 

14:94(A). Wells asserts that the evidence is insufficient to show (1) that he 

discharged the firearm, and (2) if he did, that it was foreseeable that the 

gunshot might result in death or great bodily harm.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines 

de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The Government must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence the facts forming the basis of a sentencing 

enhancement. United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 2012).

Law enforcement received reports of shots fired at an apartment complex 

in Baton Rouge. Deputies responded and heard additional gunshots. They 

found Wells and his brother in the parking lot of the apartment complex.

Wells’s brother had a loaded revolver in his waistband. Deputies found a 

handgun in a bush close to where Wells fled when the deputies first confronted 

him. Wells’s DNA was later found on the handgun. The gun, which had an 

obliterated serial number, had an empty magazine and its slide was locked to 

the rear, indicating the entire magazine had been fired. Shell casings found 

near the apartment building were of the same caliber and brand as loose 

ammunition discovered in the truck the Wells brothers had been approaching 

before fleeing when the deputies arrived. 

This is more than enough evidence to support the district court’s finding 

that Wells fired the gun found in the bush. And discharging a firearm at an 

apartment complex carries a sufficient risk of harm to be a crime under 

Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:94(A). Even when a gun is not aimed at a 

person, it is foreseeable that firing shots in a residential area might cause 

death or serious bodily injury. See, e.g., State v. Delaneuville, 283 So. 3d 1065, 

1067–68 (La. Ct. App. 5th. Cir. 2019); State v. Matthews, 70 So. 3d 116, 120 

 Case: 19-30016 Document: 00515384282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 19-30016

3

(La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011); State v. Mickel, 581 So. 2d 404, 405 (La. Ct. App. 

5th Cir. 1991). The cases Wells relies on involved shots fired in unpopulated 

areas. See State v. Chenevart, 49 So. 2d 1059, 1061–65 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 

2010); State v. Cain, 21 So. 3d 1104, 1105 – 07 (La Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009). In 

any event, there was also sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that 

Wells was shooting at someone. He told the deputies, “Man, they were 

breaking into my brother’s s***” and “I should have killed that mother******.” 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30016 Document: 00515384282 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2020