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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 40 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Su li f I. W il ki ns

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 12 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Defen da nt Su li f I. W il ki n s p l e a d e d gu il ty to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He ap pe al s hi sse nt e n c e , r ai si ng th ree se pa rat e ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e 1
Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s. We affir m

.

W il ki ns ’s gi rlf

rie nd re p o rte d th at he ha d as sa ul te d he r, fir ed sh ot s in he r di rect io n, an d th reat en ed to sh oo t he r m ot he r an d si bl in gs

. Offi cers reco ve red a bu ll et fro m th e dr y wall of h e r ap art m en t. App ro xi m at el y two week s la te r, of fic ers
ap pr oa ch ed W il ki n s r eg ard in g an un rel at ed ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n. The y di rect ed hi m to ge t on th e gr ou nd

. Offi cers rep or te d th at W il ki ns reac he d un de r hi s sh irt an d

pu ll ed wha t ap pe ared to be a fir earm fro m ne ar hi s wai s t ba nd

. He th en le an ed in to th e dr iv er’s si de of a ve hi cl e an d reac he d to ward s th e bo tt om o f t he dr iv er’s se at be fo re fle ei ng

. Offi cers pu rs ue d an d cap tu red hi m

. Offi cers th en l o o k e d i n t o th e

ve hi cl e an d co ul d se e th e ha nd le of a fir earm ex te nd in g fro m un de r th e dr iv er’s se at

. Offi cers ret rie ve d th e fir earm , id en ti fy in g it as a .40 -cal ib er se m ia ut om at ic ha nd gu n lo ad ed wit h fi fte en rou nd s i n t he m ag azi ne an d o ne in th e ch am be r.

W il ki ns was arre st ed an d ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm a n d on e co un t of po ss es si ng a st ol en fir earm

. He pl ead ed gu il ty t o th e fir st co un t, an d th e se co nd co un t was di sm is se d. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, t he st at ut or y m ax im um

.

As a fir st po in t of erro r, W il ki ns arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y cl as si fie d hi s pr io r Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd de gr ee rob be ry , Mi ss ou ri Rev is ed St at ut es § 56 9.0 30 (2 00 6)
, as a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(2 ). The di st ric t

co ur t pr op erl y cl as si fie d th e pr io r co nv ic ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Swo pe s, No. 16

- 17 97
, sl ip op ., 20 1 8 W L 15 25 82 5, — F.3 d — (8 th Ci r. Mar

. 29
, 20 18 ) (en ba nc ) (h ol di ng § 56 9.0 30 qu al ifi es as a “ vi ol en t fel on y ” un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)); se e al so

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-U n i t e d St at es v. Vin to n, 63 1 F.3 d 47 6, 48 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rp ret in g “ cri m e o f

vi ol en ce” a nd “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” sy no nym ou sl y ).

As a se co nd po in t of erro r, W il ki ns arg ues the di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d

a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(4 )(A) bas ed on a fin di ng th at th e gu n at is su e in th e pr es en t of fen se was st ol en

. We n e e d n o t ad dr es s th e

su bs ta nc e of th is cl ai m be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t sp eci fic al ly no te d th at it wou ld no t ha ve ch an ge d th e ov eral l se nt en ce ev en ha d t h i s en ha nc em en t no t ap pl ie d. See Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 82 1 F.3 d 98 4, 98 8– 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (err or is ha rm le ss

“ whe re th e di st ric t co ur t sp eci fie s th e res ol ut io n of a pa rti cu la r is su e di d no t affe ct th e ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of a se nt en ce, su ch as whe n th e di st ric t co ur t i n d i c a te s it

wou ld ha ve al te rn at iv el y im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce ev en if a lo wer gu id el in e ran ge
ap pl ie d” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

As th e th ird po in t of erro r, W il k in s pr es en ts a two -p ro ng ed arg um en t ch al le ng in g th e ap pl ic at io n of U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at he po ss es se d th e fir ear m i n c o nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se

. Acco rd in g to W il ki ns , th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng was cl earl y erro ne ou s, an d, in an y ev en t, ap pl ic at io n of th is Gui de li ne res ul te d in im pe rm is si bl e “ do ub le

co un ti ng .”

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed W il ki ns ha d co m m it te d a fel on y un de r Mi ss ou ri
Rev is ed St at ut es § 5 7 1

. 0 30 .1(1 ) by carr y in g a co nc eal ed fir earm

. Uno bjec te d- to
p a r ag rap hs of th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t co nt ai n fact ua l av erm en t s

es ta bl is hi ng th is vi ol at io n. See Uni te d Stat es v. Ki ll en , 76 1 F.3d 94 5, 94 9 (8t h Cir.
20 14 ) (“ [T]he co ur t m ay

acce pt th e fac ts as t ru e an d re ly on t he un ob jecte d- to fact s in de te rm in in g whe th er to im po se an en ha nc em en t.” (q uo ti n g Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 64 6 F.3 d 11 34
, 11 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ))). The di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s.

-3

-“ [D]oub le co un ti ng oc cu rs whe n o n e pa rt of th e Gui de li ne s is ap pl ie d to

in crea se a de fen da nt ’s pu ni sh m en t on acco un t of a ki nd of ha rm th at ha s al read y be en fu ll y acco un te d fo r by ap pl ic at io n of an ot he r pa rt of th e Gui de li ne s.” Uni te d Stat es

v. Ch ap m an , 61 4 F.3 d 81 0, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q u ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Hip en be ck er, 11 5 F.3 d 58 1, 58 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Ill eg al ly carr y in g a co n c e a le d fir earm in vi ol at io n of Mi ss ou ri la w req ui res th e pr oo f of di ffer en t el em en ts th an th e

un de rlyin g § 92 2( g) of

fen se in th is cas e. App lying U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) ba se d

up on th e ci te d Mi ss ou ri of fen se , th eref

or e, pu ni sh es a di f

f e r e nt ha rm th an th at

acco un te d fo r in th e Gui de li ne ’s b as e of fen se lev el for

§ 9 22 (g ). See Un it ed Sta te s

v. Ja ck so n, 63 3 F.3 d 70 3, 70 5– 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Lon g, 56 3 F. App ’x 49 8, 4 99 –5 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (pe r cu ria m ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-4

-