P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10985 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. SHA N N ON RAY FU LBRI GH T , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8

- CR- 1 9

- ALL
B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * S h an n on R ay F u lb righ tpl ead ed gu i l t y pu rsuan tt o a w ri t t en pl ea agr ee m ent t o bei ng a fel on i n unl aw f ul pos se ss i on of a f

i r ear m i n vi ol at i on o f 18 U
. S. C. § § 922 ( g) ( 1) and 92 4( a) ( 2)
. The c o ur tse nt e nc e d Fulbr i ghta tt he hi gh e nd of t h e a d visorygu i d eli n es ra n ge to 37 m on th s of i m p ri son m en t. F u lbri gh targu es t h at t h e di st ri ct court erred by enh an ci n g h i s s en t en ce u n der U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 6) on t h e basi s t h at he used or possessed t h e f i rearm United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10985

2 i n con n ection w i th the u n a u th orized u se o f a m otor v eh i cl e. F u lb ri gh t asse rts th a tt h e G o v e rn m e n t fa il e dto p ro v e th a t h e co m m itted u n a u th o riz e du se of a
m o t o rv e hi c l e b e c aus e t he e vi de nc e di d no t s ho w t hat he kne w t hat hi s us e o f t he st ol en ve hi c l e w as unauthor i ze d, as r equi r ed byT EXAS P ENAL C ODE§ 31. 07. W e m us tdet e r m i ne w he t he rt he di s t r i c tco ur tco m m i t t e d anys i gnif i c ant p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r . S ee G a ll v . Un ite dS t ate s , 552 U
. S. 38, 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 200 7)
. Ap rocedural err or i n cl u des a fai l u re t o cal cul ate t h e proper gu i del i n es r a n g e o rth e s e le c tio n o f a s e n te n c e b a s e du p o n c le a r lye r r o n e o u s fa c ts . G a ll , 128 S. C t . at597. W e re vi ew the di st r i c tc our t ’ s gui del i nes i nt er pre t at i ons de novo a n dfin d in g s o f fa c t fo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d St a t e s v . Le , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d12 8 , 13 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 29 S
. C t . 5 5 ( 200 8)
. Af i n di n g i s c l earl y erroneou s w h en

“ t h e revi ew i n g cour t o n th e enti re evi den ce i s l ef tw i t h t h e def

i n i t e an d f

i rm c o n victi on tha t a m i stak e h a s be en com m i tted.” Uni t e d St at e s v . Coo per , 274 F .3d 2 3 0 , 2 3 8 (5t h C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). Afact u al f

i n di n g i s n ot cl earl y erroneou s if i ti s pl au sibl e i n l i gh tof t h e rec ord
a s aw h o le
. I

d. Se c t i o n 2 K 2. 1(b) ( 6) a ut ho r i z e s af o ur - l e ve li nc r e as e w he r e t he de fe nda nt possessed t h e f

i rearm “ i n conn ect i on w i t h ” an ot h er f el on y of fen se. Th e ph rase

“ an ot h er f

el on y of fen se” forp u rposes of § 2K 2. 1(b) ( 6) , “m ean s an y federal , st ate, o rl o c alo f

fe ns e , o t he rt han t he e xp l o s ive o rfi rea r m s po s s e s s i o n o rt r af f i c ki ng of fen se, pu n i sha bl e by i m pri sonm en tf or a t erm exceedi n g on e year, regardl ess of w het hera c r i m i nalc harge w as br ought , ora c onvi c t i on o bt ai ned. ” § 2K 2. 1, c o m m e n t. (n .1 4 (C )). T h e T e x a s o ffe n s e o f u n a u th o r iz e du s e o f a m o to rv e h ic le is as ta te ja i lfe lo n yp u n is h a b le b yu p to tw o y e a r s o f im p r is o n m e n t. S eeT EX . P ENAL C ODE § § 1 2 .35 (a ), 3 1 .07 (a ). T h e G overnm en tm u stprove t h e fact s necessary f or a s en t en ce e n h a n c e m e n t b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. Tru jil lo , 5 0 2 F .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e T e x a s o ffen se of u n a u th o riz e du se of a
m ot or vehi cl e occ u rs w h en a person “i n t en t i on al l y or kn ow i n gl y operatesN o. 08- 10985

3 a n o th e r ’ s . . . m o to r -p r o p e lle dv e h ic le w ith o u t th e e ffe c tiv e co n s e n t o f th e o w n e r .” T EX . P ENAL C ODE § 31. 07( a)
. Texas l aw pro vi des t hat“ [ c ] ons enti s notef fec t ive i f
. . . g ive n b y a pe r s o n t he a c t o rkno w s i s no tl e gal l y aut ho r i z e d t o a c tf o rt he
ow n er.” T EX . P ENAL C ODE § 3 1 .01 (3 )(B ). T h e ow n er of

t h e veh i cl e t h at Fu lbri gh tw as drivi n g w h en he com m i t t ed t h e i n st an tof

fen se stat ed t h at she di d n otk n ow h i m a n d t h at h e nev er had her pe r m i s s i o n t o dr ive o rus e he rc ar . Fulbr i gh t ini t i al l y de ni e d b e i ng i n t he vehi c l e, butl at eradm i t t ed t o dr ivi ng t he ve hi c l e. H e a l so s t at ed th a t he had bor r ow ed t he w eapo n i n ques t i on f r om a f r i end (t o g o r abbi thun t i ng) and had pl ac e d i ti n t he c ar . Fulbr i ghts t at e d t hathe b ar t e r e d f o r us e o f t he c arw i t h a
m a n , w h o m h e o n lyk n e w a s “R o b ,” in e x c h a n g e fo rs o m e “d o p e .” T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n o t m ak e an expl i ci tf i n di n g t h at Fu lbri gh tkn ew t hathi s use o f

t he v e hi c l e w as una ut ho r i z e d; t he c o ur t , ho w e ve r , i m pl i c i t l y f o und t h at Fu lbri gh tha d the requ i si t e kn ow l edg e w h en i tf ou n d that “ t h ere has been a show i n g, by a prep on deran ce of t h e evi den ce, t h at t h ere w as an un au t h ori zed
u se of a m otor v eh i cl e, a n dthe po sse ssion of th i s f i rea rm w a s i n con n ection w i th t ha t un a ut ho r i z e d us e . ” A d i s t r i c t c o ur t m a y m a ke i m p l i c i t f i nd i ng s of

fac tat s e n te n c in g . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. P u ig -Infa n te , 1 9 F .3d 9 2 9 , 9 4 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). Fulbr i ght di d no t pr e s e nt e vi de nc e at s e nt e nc i ng i n s upp o r t o f hi s o bj e c t i o ns , a nd t h e di st ri ctcourt ap proved t h e rel evan tpart of t h e P S R
. G iven t h e un di spu t ed fact s r egard i n g t h e ci rcum sta n ces of F u lbri gh t ’ s use of

t h e car, t h e di st ri ct c our t ’ s i m pl i ci t fi n d i ng t hatFu lbr i ghtknew t hathe di d nothave t he e f fec t ive consen tof

t h e ow n er t o use t h e car i s p l au sibl e in li gh tof t h e rec ord as a w h ol e. S ee Cooper , 274 F. 3d at238. F u lb r ig h tn e x ta r g u e s t h a tt h e e v id e n c e d id n o ts u p p o r tt h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s determ i n ati on t h at he com m i t t ed the f i rearm p osses si on of fen se “i n conn ect i on w i t h ” t h e un au t h ori zed u se of a m ot or ve h icle fel on y. H ow ever, t h e di st ri ct c our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatt he pr es enc e o f t he l oade d f

i r ear m i n t he bac k s eat of t he c arN o. 08- 10985

T h e w ri t t en fact u albasi s f or Fu lbri gh t ’ s gui l ty p lea speci f i cal l y st ated 1 t hatFu lbr i ght“ di d know i ngl y po ss es s i n and af fec t i ng i nt er st at e a nd f or ei gn c o m m e r c e a fi r e ar m . ” The go ve r nm e nta r gue s t hatb y s i gni ng t hi s s t at e m e nt of fac t s, Fu lbr i ghtadm i t t ed t hath e knew thath i s pos se ss i on of the f i r ear m w as in o r a ffe c tin g c o m m e r c e . W e d o u b t, h o w e v e r , th a t u n d e rth e cir c u m s ta n c e s th is i s apr o pe rb as i s for aff i r m anc e . The s t at e m e nti n q ue s t i o n was m ad e i n t he w r itt en statem en t i n su p p ort of t h e p l ea , an dthe sam e w ri tten statem en t in su b stan ce a d vised tha t kn ow i n gly p oss ess i n g a w ea p on i n or a ff ectingi n tersta te com m erce didn o t m e a n tha t “k n ow i n gly” ap p l i ed to “i n or a ff ectingi n tersta te c o m m e r c e , ” b uto nl y ap pl i e d t o po s s e s s i o n o f t he w e ap o n. 4 h a dth e p o te n tia l o f fa c ilita tin gF u lb r ig h t ’ s u n a u th o r iz e du s e o f th e v e h ic le is p la u s ib le in lig h t o f th e re c o r da s a w h o le
. Se ei d. ; § 2 K 2 .1, co m m e n t. (n .14 )(A). F u lbri gh ta rgues t h at h i s con vi ct i on sh ou l d be vacated becau se t h e w ord

“ kn ow i n gl y” i n § 924(a) ( 2) app l i es not on ly t o t h e possess i on of a f i rearm proscr ibed i n § 922(g) ( 1) bu tal so t o t h e factt h at s u ch possessio n w a s “in or a ffe c tin gco m m e r c e .” W e h a v e r ej e c te dth is co n te n tio n m a n ytim e s . S e e , e.g ., Un i t ed S t ate s v. D an cy , 8 6 1 F .2 d 7 7 , 8 0 -8 1 (5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Sc hm i dt , 4 8 7 F .3 d2 5 3 , 2 5 4 -5 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t a tes v. Cook , 308 F ed A p p ’ x7 9 2 (5 th C ir ., J a n u a r y2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ). F u lb r ig h t a s s e r ts th a t t h e d e c is io n in Flores - Figu eroa v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 29 S. Ct
. 18 86 ( 20 09 ) , o ve r r ul e d o urpr e c e de nt th a t w o u ldo th e r w is e fo r e c lo s e th is cla im
. H o w e v e r , Flores - Figu eroai nvo lve d a t o t a l l yd i f

fe r e n ts t a t u t e , wi t h d i f fe r e n two r d i n ga n ds t r u c t u r e . I n o u rv i e w, w h et h er Flores - Figu eroac an be ext ended t o o ver r ul e o ur s ec t i on 924( a) ( 2) p rece d en t i s a m a tter for th e Su p rem e C ou rt, or ou r cou rt e n b anc , a n dn o t t h is p a n e l. 1 AF F I RMED.