# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 10 08

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lio ne l Lee Dix on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 16 Fil ed : M ay

16 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

App el la nt Lio ne l Dix on pl ead ed gu il ty t o b e i n g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2 ( g) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 1

48 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Dix on ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.erre d in ap pl y in g a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. W e

affi rm

.

On M a y 21
, 20 14
, Dix on was in vo lv ed in a co nf ro nt at io n wit h a ne ig hb or du rin g whi ch Dix on ret rie ve d a pi st ol an d th reat en ed th e ne ig hb or wit h th e weap on

. Afte r an un id en ti fie d ob se rv er pl aced an em erg en cy ph on e ca ll

, po li ce lo cat ed an d

arre st ed Dix on an d co nf

is cat ed th e fir earm

. An of fic er su bs eq ue nt ly a tt em

pt ed to

te st -fi re th e pi st ol an d di sc ov ered th at i t d i d no t fu nc ti on du e to an is su e wit h th e
gu n’s fi rin g m ech an is m

.

Dix on pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). At Dix on ’s sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e Gov ern m en t p ur su ed

a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es be cau se Dix on ha d us ed th e weap on in co nn ect io n wit h a fel on y of fen se —t he cri m e of “ [e]xh ib it [in g], in th e pr es en ce of on e or m or e pe rs on s, [a] weap on read il y cap ab le
of le th al us e in an an gr y or th reat en in g m an ne r.” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 5 7 1

. 03 0.1 (4 ).
Dix on ob jecte d to th is en ha nc em en t. He arg ue d th at be cau se th e gu n was no t
fu nc t io na l, it di d no t m eet th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut e’s req ui rem en t th at th e weap on be

“ read il y cap ab le of l et ha l u se .” Alt ho ug h t he co ur t ag reed wit h Di xo n’s re as on in g, it fo un d th e arg um en t fo recl os ed by p r e v io us de ci si on s of th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t.

The di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t res u l t e d i n a gu id el in es

ran ge o f 5 7

- 7 1 mo nt hs ’ im pr is on m en t (as op po se d to th e 37 -4 6 m on th ran ge th at

wou ld ha ve ap pl ie d wit ho ut th e en ha nc em en t). Ack no wled gi ng th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se an d th e fact th at th e pi st ol was no t fu nc ti on al

, th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d
do wnwar d an d se nt en ced Dix on to a te rm of 48 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Dix on no w
ap pe al s, ren ewin g hi s a r g u men t t ha t he di d no t vi ol at e se ct io n 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ) of th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut es be cau se a weap on m us t be fu nc ti on al in or de r to be “ read il y cap ab le
of let ha l u se ” u nd er t he st at ut e.

-2

-Sect io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) of th e Gu i d e li ne s Man ua l pr ov id es th at “ [i]f th e

de fen da nt [u ]sed or po ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se ,” th en th e co ur t s ho ul d i nc reas e th e o ffen se lev el by fou r le ve ls

. “ In

ap pl y in g § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) whe n t he de fen da nt ha s n ot be en co nv ic te d o f an ot he r st at e

or fed eral fel on y of

fen se , th e di st ric t co ur t m us t f i n d b y a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce th at an ot he r fel on y of fen se was co m

m it te d, an d th at us e or po ss es si on of th e fir earm ‘facil it at ed ’ th at ot he r fel on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Li tt re ll , 5 57 F

. 3 d 6 1 6 , 6 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng USSG § 2K2 .1 cm t. n

. 1 4( A)). The le ga l co nc lu si on s a di st ric t co ur t reac he s in or de r to ap pl y th is en ha nc em en t ar e rev ie wed de no vo , a nd
th e fact ua l fin di ng s su pp or ti ng th e en ha nc em en t are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d
St at es v. Rod

ri gu ez , 71 1 F .3d 92 8, 9 38 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

Mi ss ou ri la w pr oh ib it s as on e of se ve ral “ un la wfu l us es of weap on s” th e kn owi ng “ [e]x h i b i t [ io n], in th e pr es en ce of on e or m or e pe rs on s, [o f] an y weap on read il y cap ab le of le th al us e in an an gr y or th reat en in g m a n n er.” Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 0.0 30 .1 ( 4 )

. Vio la ti on of th is pr ov is io n co ns ti tu te s a cl as s D f el on y pu ni sh ab le
b y u p t o fo ur y ears in pr is on

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 1.0 30 .8. In as se ss in g whe t h e r Dix on ’s con du ct vi ol at ed th is pr ov is io n, we de fer to th e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co ur t’s
in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e. Se e Li tt re ll

, 55 7 F.3 d at 61 7- 18 (lo ok in g to st at e su pr em e

co ur t de ci si on s to de te rm in e whe th er de fen da nt ha d co m m i t t e d a “felo ny of

fen se ”

un de r USSG § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) ); se e al so Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. 13 3, 13 8 (2 01 0) (ack no wled gi ng th at fed eral co ur ts ap pl y in g se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act, 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), are “ bo un d by” s ta te -co ur t
in te rp ret at io ns of s ta te cri m in al st at ut es ).

The Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at a weap o n q u a l i f ie s as “ read il y
cap ab le of le th al us e” un de r se ct io n 57 1.0 30 .1 ev en if it is no t fu nc ti on al

. In St at e v. W ri gh t , a de fen da nt ch al le ng ed hi s co nv ic ti on un de r th e st at ut e’s pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t

carr y in g a co nc eal ed weap on , a r g u i ng th at th e st at e ha d fai le d to pr ov id e ev id en ce sh owi ng th at th e weap on in q u e s t io n was fu nc ti on al

. 38 2 S.W .3d 90 2, 90 4- 5 (Mo

.

-3

-20 12 ). The co ur t reject ed th e de fen da nt ’s arg um en t. Id

. at 90 5. It no te d th at so m e, bu t n o t a l l

, o f th e “ un la wfu l us e of weap on s” of fen se s li st ed in se ct io n 57 1.0 30 .1
in cl ud e a “ sp eci al ne ga ti ve de fen se ” th at ap pl ie s whe n a de fen da nt is “ tra ns po rti ng ”

a fir earm th at is “ no nf

un ct io ni ng .” Id

. at 90 4- 05 “ Pro vi di ng fo r th is sp eci al ne ga ti ve de fen se wou ld be m ean in gl es s,” th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ if th e St at e al way s ha d to pr ov e th e fu nc ti on al it y

of a fir earm in it s case -in -ch ie f.” Id

. at 90 4. The co ur t t hu s fo un d

“ no req ui rem en t fo r a fir earm to be lo ad ed or o pe rat io na l fo r a de fen da nt to be

co nv ic te d un de r § 57 1.0 30 .1” an d affi rm ed th e de fen da nt ’s c on vi ct io n fo r carr yi ng

a co nc eal ed weap on de sp it e th e fact th at th e st at e ha d no t pr ov id ed ev id en ce th at th e
gu n i n q ue st io n was fun ct io na l. Id

. at 9 04 -0 5.

The fel on y un de rlyin g Dix on ’s en ha nc em en t co n t a i n s th e sa m e “ read il y
cap ab le of le th al us e” l an gu ag e as th e co nc eal ed -weap on off en se co ns id ered by th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co u r t in W ri gh t

. Se e Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 0.0 30 .1(4 ). Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, th eref

or e, th e Gov ern m en t di d no t ne ed to pr ov e in it s cas e in ch ie f th at
Dix on ’s weap on wa s f

u n c ti on al in or de r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d th at Dix on
po ss es se d th e weap on in co nn ect io n wit h a vi ol at io n of th e st at ut e. Se e W ri gh t , 38 2
S.W .3d at 90 5. Nor do es Mi ss ou ri la w p r o v id e a sp eci al ne ga ti ve de fen se whe re a fir earm ex hi bi te d in an an gr y or th reat en in g m an ne r is no t fu nc ti on al

. Se e Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 0.0 30 .3. Fo ll owi ng th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t’s ad m on it io n no t to ren de r

“ m ean in gl es s” th os e pr ov is io ns th at do affo rd su ch a de fen se , se e W ri gh t , 38 2 S.W .3d

at 90 4, we de cl in e to read a no n- fu nc t i o n a l it y de fen se in to th e st at ut e’s pr oh ib it io n
ag ai ns t ex hi bi ti ng a weap on in an an gr y or t hr eat en in g m an ne r. Se e Mo . Rev . S ta t. § 57 0.0 30 .1(4 )

. As a res ul t, we fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by ap pl y in g th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

. 2

Dix on do es no t ch al le ng e th e su bs ta nt iv e rea so na bl en es s o f hi s s en te nc e. 2

-4

-KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

W rig ht he ld th at “ Sect io n 57 1.0 30 [] do es no t req ui re th e st at e to pr ov e th at a[]

. . . fir earm is ‘fun ct io na l,’” co m m en ti ng th at “ th e m ajor it y of cas es ha ve co ns is te nt ly
he ld th ere is no req ui rem en t fo r a fir earm to be lo ad ed or op erat io na l fo r a de fen da nt

to be co nv ic te d.” 38 2 S.W .3d at 90 4– 05

. Bec au se I be li ev e th is ho l d i n g do es no t

req ui re a fir earm

to be fun ct io na l t o s up po rt a co nv ic ti on un de r § 57 1.0 30
, I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s ru li ng in th is cas e. I writ e se pa rat el y , ho w e v e r , t o ex pr es s so m e

co nc ern wit h th e reas on in g of W rig ht a s a p p l i ed to th e fact s he re. In W rig ht

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri was face d wit h th e arg um en t th at “ th ere was in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al to fin d” th at th e fir earm in th at cas e “ was a ‘fun ct io na l
le th al weap on .’ ” 38 2 S.W .3d at 90 5. In ho ld in g th at su ch ev id en ce was no t req ui red

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co ll ap se d th e co nc ep ts of “ fu nc ti on al ” an d “ re a d i l y cap ab le of
le th al us e.” Eve n if th e St at e is no t req ui red to pr ov e th at th e fir earm is “ fu nc ti on al ,”
in th e se ns e th at it work s as de si gn ed , th e p la in lan gu ag e of th e st at ut e do es req ui re
pr o o f t h a t t h e fir earm is “ read il y cap ab le of le th al us e.” W he th er th e fir earm is
fu nc ti on al se em s re le va nt to th is in qu iry—no t ne ces sa ril y di sp os it iv e, bu t rel ev an t.

Thi s di st in ct io n is il lu st rat ed by th e sp e c i a l n eg at iv e de fen se en um erat ed in § 57 1.0 30 .3: th at de f

e n s e ap pl ie s to tra ns po rti ng weap on s “ in a no nf un ct io ni ng

st at e ,” as di st in ct f

ro m a no nf

un ct io ni ng wea

po n

. The la tt er su gg es ts th e fir earm do es n’t wor k as a fir earm at al l un de r an y ci rcu m st an ces ; th e fo rm er su gg es ts th at an

ot he rwis e fu nc ti on in g fir earm do es n’t pr es en tl y fu nc ti on si m pl y be cau se of th e st at e it is in

, pe rh ap s be cau se it is un lo ad ed

, p u r p o s e l y b r ok en do wn in to it s pa rts , or

ot he rwis e di sa bl ed to pr ev en t un ex pe ct ed di sc ha rg e du rin g tra ns po rta ti on

. A fir earm

“ in a no nf un ct io ni ng st at e” co ul d un de r so me ci rcu m st an ces be “ read il y cap ab le of
le th al us e,” but th e sp eci al ne ga ti ve de fen se all ows a de fen da nt to av oi d cul pa bi li ty
if he can pr ov e th e weap on or fir earm was be in g tra n s p o r te d “ in a no nf un ct io ni ng

st at e” ev en if t he fir earm

was o th erwi se “ read il y

cap ab le of l et ha l u se .”

-5

-Tha t do es no t, ho wev er, an swe r th e pr eci se qu es ti on po se d by th is cas e:

whe th er th e fact th at a fir earm is co m pl et el y no nf

un ct io n in g is rel ev an t to
de te rm in in g whe th er it is “ read il y cap ab le of le th al us e.” If face d wit h th is qu es ti on

on fact s li ke th os e p r e s e n te d he re— whe re al l pa rti es ag ree th at Dix on ’s pi st ol was

no nf un ct io ni ng —i t s eem s p os si bl e th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri wo ul d l im it
th e ap pl ic ab il it y of W rig ht

, an d wou ld rat he r co ns id er th e fu nc ti on al it y of th e fir earm in th e co nt ex t of th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of t h e s t a t u te , whi ch as ks whe th er th e weap on

ex hi bi te d was “ read il y cap ab le of le th al us e.” Bec au se th e Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ha ve no t
be en pre se nt ed wit h t he op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er s uc h a cas e, ho wev er, I co nc ur

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-