T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 19, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2259 P AT RI CK AYON, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o. C R -05-216 0-W P J) ( D . N ew M exi co)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , H O L L O W A Y , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndantPatr i ck A y on appea l s hi s s eventy - m onth s ent ence , cont endi ng thatt he d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr o n e o u s ly ad d e d f o u r l e v e ls to h is o f

f e n s e le v e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(5 ) f

o r u sin g o r p o ss e ss in g a n yf ire a rm o r a m m u n iti o n in c o n n e c tio n w ith a n o th e r f e lo n yo f f e n se . T h e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A y o n h a d u se d a f ire a rm to comm i tthe N ew M exi co fe l onyoffe ns es of aggr avat ed as s aul t , s hoot i ng ata dw el l i ng or fr om a vehi cl e, and contr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a mi nor . A y on cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o m ake s uffi ci entfac tual fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons of l aw and thatt he-2-

on l yevidence sup po rt i ng the en han cem ent w as unrel i able hears ay . W e exerci se j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m. I. O n A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , A y o n e n c o u n ter e d Jo se p h R a m ire z a t a b irth d a yp a rtyin A l buquer que, N ew M exi co. A ft era verbal al t er cat i on betw een the tw o m en, A y on and R ami r ez w er e as ked t o l eave the party . A y on then w enthom e w i th hi s tw o m i nor nephew s , L aw r ence and M i chae l C andel ar i a ( her ei naft err efe rr ed t o as L aw r ence and M ic h a e l, r e s p e c tiv e ly), a n d w a s jo in e d a t s o m e p o in t b ya f ri e n d n a m e d M ic h a e l V a lle z . O ver the co urse of t he d ay , A y on and R am i rez traded a seri es of t hreat ening ph on e cal l s, w ith e a c h m a n th re a te n in g th e o th e r m a n w ith v a ri o u s f o rm s o f p h y s ic a l v io le n c e . E v e n tu a lly , A y o n a sk e d L a w re n c e , M ich a e l, an d V a llez to a c c o m p a n yh im to R ami r ez’ s apart m entbeca us e he a nd R ami r ez w er e goi ng t o fi ght . W hen he a rr i ved att he apart m entcompl ex, A y on gotoutof hi s carand R ami r ez then w al ked outont o the bal conyof hi s apart m entw i th a r i fl e. T he part i es agr ee thatA y on and R ami r ez s hotat eac h other . A y on then dr ove aw ayfr om the s cene w i th M i chae l i n the ca r , l eavi ng V al l ez a n d L a w re n c e b e h in d . A l bu qu erque D et ect i ve Jam i e M uell er w as nearbyand heard a seri es of g un shots , the fi r s ts etbei ng fr om w hathe des cr i bed as a hi gher - cal i berw eapon a nd the s econd s et fr om a l ow er - cal i berw eapon. H e pr ocee ded t o i nves t i gat e. A ft erdr i vi ng a bl ock, M u e lle r s a w A y o n d ri v in g th ro u g h a s to p s ig n a s h e w a s tr y in g to p u t o n h is s e a t b e lt. M u e lle r i n itia te d a s to p a n d A y o n w a s e v e n tu a lly a rr e s te d f o r d ri v in g w h ile in to x ic a te d .T hi s pr ovi s i on has s i nce be en moved t o § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) w i thoutotherw i s e bei ng 1 a ltere d . S e e U n ited S tate s v . H o w se , 4 7 8 F .3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 0 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e w ill n o n e th e le s s c o n tin u e to re f e r t o th is p ro v is io n a s “ § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 5 )” f o r c o n s is te n c y ’s s a k e . -3- D ur i ng the s t op, M uel l eras ked A y on i f he ha d hear d guns hot s . A y on fi r s tr epl i ed he ha d n o t, b u t l ater ad m itted th at he h ad h ea rd g u n sh o ts “an d that k ids w ere ex ch an g ing g u n fire betw een tw o apart m entcompl exes . ” R O A , V ol . I V , at10. O verthe nextfew hour s , t he p o lic e p ie c e d to g e th e r t h a t a s h o o tin g h a d o c c u rr e d a t R a m ir e z ’s a p a rt m e n t c o m p le x . A s a r es ul tof the pol i ce f i ndi ng a s hot gun i n A y on’ s vehi cl e, A y on w as i ndi ct ed forvi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) and 18 U . S. C . § 924( a) ( 2) , fel on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm and amm uni t i on. A y on eventual l ypl ed gui l tyt o the cha r ge. T he pr es ent ence re p o rt (P S R ) su b m itt e d b yth e P ro b a tio n O f f ice p rio r to se n ten c in g in c lu d e d in its G ui del i nes cal cul at i on a pr opos ed four - l evel enhanc ementof A y on’ s bas e off ens e l evel under§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) , w hi ch pr ovi ded i n part : “I f the def endantus ed orpos s es s ed any fi r earm oramm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i th anotherfel onyoffe ns e . . . i ncr eas e [the defe ndant ’ s offe ns e l evel ] by4 l evel s . ” T he PSR char act er i zed A y on’ s fi r i ng of a 1 f ire a rm a t R a m ire z a t th e a p a rtm e n t co m p lex a s th e u se o r p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in connec t i on w i th anotherfel onyoffe ns e: Pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) , i f the def endantus ed orpos s es s ed any fi rearm or am m un i t i on i n co nn ect i on w i th an otherfel on yoff ense, i ncrease by4 l evel s . T he off

ens e conduc tr egar di ng thi s offe ns e r evea l ed that A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, pol i ce of fi cer s r es ponded t o a s cene r egar di ng s hot s fi r ed. D ur i ng the i nves t i gat i on, offi cer s s poke t o w i tnes s es , w ho s t at ed theyobs erved the def endants hoot i ng a handgun a tan uni dent i fi ed vi ct i m s t andi ng i n a parki ng l ot . A l though the vi ct i m w as neverfound or i dent i fi ed and ther e ar e no pendi ng char ges agai ns tthe def endantr egar di ng the sho oti ng , the d efen dan tcou l d h ave b een ch arged w i th a fe l on yoff ense-4-

p u n ish a b le b ym o re th a n a y e a r. T h e re f o re , a 4 lev e l en h a n c e m e n t is a p p lica b le PSR at5. W i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V and a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one, th e P S R re c o m m e n d e d a G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e ra n g e o f s e v e n ty to e ig h ty-s e v e n m o n th s . A y o n o b jec ted to th e f

o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t u n d e r § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(5 ), ar g u in g th a t h is us e of the fi r earm w as nota fe l onyoffe ns e bec aus e he w as act i ng i n s el f- defe ns e. T he di s tr i ctcourthel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e s ent enci ng t o det erm i ne i f ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe enha ncement . T es t i fy i ng on A y on’ s behal f, L aw r ence s t at ed thathe w as “pos i t i ve” thatR ami r ez f i r ed fi r s t . R O A , V ol . I V , at36, 39. T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o hear d t es t i m onyfr om Speci al A gentT i m othyK i ng of the fe der al B ur eau of

A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s , and Expl os i ves , w ho w as w or ki ng on a t as k for ce w i th the A l buquer que Pol i ce D epart m enton the dayof the s hoot i ng. K i ng t es t i fi ed about tw o s t at ement s thatM i chae l m ade t o K i ng on the ni ghtof the s hoot i ng, i n w hi ch M i chae l atfi r s ts t at ed thathe di d notknow w ho w as s hoot i ng atthe apa r t m entcompl ex butl at er s a id th a t h e w a s “ c e rt a in ” th a t A y o n s h o t f ir s t. I d . a t 6 2 , 8 6 . A fter the ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g co n clud ed , the d istri ct co u rto v erru led A y o n ’s obj ect i on t o the four - l evel enhanc ement , concl udi ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es had es t abl i s hed thatA y on’ s conducti n fi r i ng a w eapon a tR ami r ez’ s apart m entcompl ex s at i s fi ed § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) beca us e i tcons t i tut ed the us e of a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i th the fol l ow i ng Ne w M e x i c o s t a t e f

e l o n yo f f e n s e s : a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t ; s h o o t i n g a ta d we l l i n g o rf r o m a vehi cl e; and contr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a mi nor . T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the-5-

PSR ’ s cal cul at i on of A y on’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel and i m pos ed a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof s e v e n ty m o n th s . II. A y o n co n tend s tha t th e d istri ct co u rterro n eo u slyap p li ed § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 )’s fo u rlev e l en h a n c e m e n t f

o r u se o r p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm o r a m m u n iti o n in c o n n e c tio n w ith anotherfel onyoffe ns e. Fi r s t , A y on as s ert s thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed byfai l i ng t o m ake s uffi ci entfac tual fi ndi ngs t o s uppor tthe enha ncement . Second, A y on cont ends thatt he onl yr el i abl e evi dence pr es ent ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng s how ed thathe ac t ed i n s el fd e f e n s e wh e n h e f

i r e d a tRa mi r e z , n o tth a th e c o mm i t t e d a f e l o n yo f f e n s e u n d e rs t a t e l a w. A . Standar d of

R evi ew I n r e v i e wi n g a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s , “ we r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo. ” U ni t ed St at es v. K ri stl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e c o u rt

“‘ w i l l notr ever s e a l ow ercourt ’ s fi ndi ng of fa cts i m pl ybeca us e w e w oul d have de ci ded the ca s e di ffe r ent l y . R ather , [w e] . . . as k w hether , on the ent i r e evi dence , [w e ar e] l eft w i th the def

i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. Ede z a , 35 9 F. 3d 12 46 , 12 48 ( 10 th Ci r . 20 04 ) ( qu ot i ng Eas l e yv. Cr omart i e , 53 2 U. S. 234, 242 ( 2001) ) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . I ti s the governm ent ’ s bur den t o demonstr at e, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thatA y on i s s ubj ectt o a s ent ence enhanc ement under§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . U ni t ed St at es v. Farns w or th, 92 F. 3d 1001, 1009 ( 10th C i r . 1996) (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . P an tel ak is, 5 8 F . 3 d 5 6 7 , 5 6 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 )).-6- B . Su f f i ci ency o f the D istri ctC ou rt ’s FactualF i nd i ngs A y on ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e i nadequa t e bec aus e the dis tri ctcou rtfai l ed to rule on t he d i sputed i ssue of w hetherA y on act ed in sel f-defense and al s o fai l ed t o expl ai n how the fa ct s s uppor t ed a f our - l evel enhanc ement . A y on as s ert s thatw e mustvaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtforfur therfac tual fi ndi ngs beca us e w e w oul d otherw i s e have t o engage i n conj ectur e t o di vi ne the bas i s for th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e n h a n c e m e n t. W e re v ie w c o m p lia n c e w ith th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re d e n o v o . U ni t ed St at es v. R odr i guez- D el m a, 456 F. 3d 1246, 1253 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on o m itted), cert. d en ied, 12 7 S . C t. 1 3 3 8 (20 0 7 ). R u le 32 (i )(3)(B ) pro v ides that, “[ a]t s ent enci ng, the court. . . m us t– foranydi s put ed port i on of the pr es ent ence r eportor o ther c o n tr o v erted m att er – rule o n the d ispu te or d eterm ine th at a ru li n g is un n ec essa ry ei therbeca us e the mat t erw i l l notaff ects ent enci ng, orbeca us e the courtw i l l notcons i der the mat t eri n s ent enci ng . . . . ” The rul e ens ur es thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cal cul at i on of the G ui del i nes r ange di d notr es ul tfr om l egal orfac tual err orbyexpos i ng the bas i s of the c a lcu latio n a n d g u a ra n tee s th a t th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n e n h a n c e m e n ts is n o t im p e rm iss ib ly sh ift ed to the d ef

en d an t. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . W il li am s, 3 7 4 F . 3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( di s cus s i ng ear l i erver s i on of the rul e) . “A rul i ng on a di s put ed i s s ue nee d notbe exhaus t i vel ydet ai l ed, buti tm us tbe def i ni t e and c l ear . ” I d. at947 n. 9. I n the ca s e bef

or e us , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons ar e def i ni t e and cl earenough t o s at i s fyR ul e 32. T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed on the di s put ed i s s ue of w hether-7-

th e sh o o tin g o n A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , jus tifie d a f o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t a fo u r-l ev el en h an ce m en t w as a p p rop ri ate. R O A , V o l. IV , at 10 2 -03 . T h e d istri ct co u rt f o u n d th a t A y o n ’s c o n d u c t am o u n ted to th e sta te f e lo n yo f f e n se s o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt; s h o o tin g a t a d w e llin g o r f ro m a v e h ic le ; a n d c o n tr ib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r. I d. at103. Fur ther , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed on the r ecor d thati tw as bas i ng i t s deci s i on on the testi m o n yp rese n ted a t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , instead o f sim p lyad o p ti n g the P S R ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs . See Farns w or th, 92 F. 3d at1011 ( r emandi ng t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor f a ili n g to m a k e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s u n d e r R u le 3 2 b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt “ sim p ly a d o p t[ e d ] t h e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt a s its f in d in g ” ). C ontr aryt o A y on’ s cont ent i on, w e nee d notengage i n conj ectur e t o det erm i ne the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r eas oni ng. A s pr es ent ed, the di s tr i ctcourthad t o choos e betw een the confl i ct i ng s t at ement s of tw o w i tnes s es . T he onl yevi dence di r ect l ys uppor t i ng the U n ited S tate s’ a rg u m e n t th a t A y o n d id n o t ac t in se lf -d e f e n se w a s M ich a e l’s s tate m e n t to A gentK i ng thatA y on fi r ed fi r s t . T he onl yevi dence di r ect l ys uppor t i ng A y on’ s ar gum ent thathe ac t ed i n s el f- defe ns e w as L aw r ence ’ s t es t i m onythatR ami r ez, notA y on, fi r ed f irst. T h e re f

o re , the o n lya v e n u e b yw h ich th e d istric t co u rt c o u ld h a v e a rriv e d a t it s c o n c lu sio n – th a t A y o n u se d a f ire a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith a f e lo n yo f f e n se – w a s to b e lie v e M ic h a e l’ s s ta te m e n t a n d d is b e lie v e L a w re n c e ’s . A y on ar gues thatthe bas i s of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng i s uncl earbeca us e i tm i ght have c oncl uded thatA y on us ed orpos s es s ed a f i r earm i n connec t i on w i th anotherfel ony offe ns e, and r ej ect ed A y on’ s cl ai m of s el f- defe ns e, i n one of tw o w ay s : ( 1) R ami r ez f i r ed-8-

atA y on fi r s t , butA y on w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o pl ead s el f- defe ns e i n a N ew M exi co c rim in a l ca se b e c a u se A y o n w a s “ th e a g g re ss o r” b yd riv in g to th e a p a rtm e n t co m p lex to i ni t i at e a f

i ghtw i th R ami r ez; or( 2) A y on fi r ed atR ami r ez f i r s t . A y on theor i zes thatt he di s tr i ctcourtm i ghthave c om e t o t he fi r s t , r atherthan the s econd, concl us i on beca us e the U nit ed S t at es ar gu ed thi s posi t i on atthe h eari ng . A y on further ar gu es that the fir st concl us i on m i s s t at es N ew M exi co l aw beca us e a pe r s on w ho i ni t i at es a fi ghtw i th nond e a d lyf o rc e m a ystill d e f

e n d h im se lf

u n d e r N e w M e x ico law if h is o p p o n e n t re so rts to d ea d lyfo rce in retali ati o n , there b yraisi n g the p o ssibil itythat the d istri ct co u rt ’s a p p l i c a t i o n o f

th e f o u r - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tt o Ay o n ’ s o f f e n s e l e v e l r e s u l t e d f

r o m a m i s t aken i nt erpr et at i on of s t at e l aw . W i thouta cl ear eri ndi cat i on of w hetherthe di s tr i ct courtadopt ed the fi r s tors econd c oncl us i on, A y on ar gues thatw e s houl d r emand t o al l ow th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to m a k e a m o re s p e c if ic f in d in g . T he di s tr i ctcourtcoul d nothave e rr ed as A y on s ugges t s beca us e the U ni t ed St at es d id n o t a rg u e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t A y o n w a s th e a g g re s s o r s im p ly f o r i n itia tin g a f

ig h t. I ns t ead, the U ni t ed St at es ar gued thatci r cumst ant i al evi dence poi nt ed t o A y on as “the aggr es s or ” w ho i ni t i at ed the gun bat t l e by f i r i ng his gun atR am i r ez , s uch as var i ous comm ent s thatA y on m ade be for e the fi ghti ndi cat i ng thathe and hi s pos s e s houl d “do i t . ” R O A , V o l. IV , at 9 3 -9 4 . A t m o st, th e U n ited S tate s a rg u e d th a t A y o n ’s d e c isio n to i ni t i at e a f

i ghtw i th R ami r ez c orr obor at ed thatA y on fi r ed the fi r s ts hoti n the gun batt l e, notthatA y on w as pr ecl uded fr om ar gui ng s el f- defe ns e bythe fa ctthatA y on dr ove over t o the apa r t m entcompl ex t o s t arta fi ghtus i ng non- deadl yfor ce. See gene r al l yi d.T he U ni t ed St at es does notar gue thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that 2 the eve nt s of A ugus t27, 2005, cons t i tut ed “c ontr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a mi nor . ” I ns t ead, i tar gues thatanyerr orthe di s tr i ctcourtm ayhave made on del i nquencyw as harm l ess gi ven i t s conclusi on that A y on com m i t t ed tw o o ther st at e fel on yoff enses: aggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng ata dw el l i ng orfr om a vehi cl e. B eca us e the U ni t ed St at es ’ ar gum enton del i nquencyr el i es on w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydeci ded that A y o n c o m m itt e d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt an d sh o o tin g a t a d w e lli n g o r f ro m a v e h icle , w e w ill focus on w hethers uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatA y on c o m m itte d th o s e tw o o f f e n s e s . -9- (“ M ich a e l C a n d e lar ia a lso in d ica ted th a t itw a s th e d e f e n d a n t w h o f

ire d th e f irst sh o t, w hi ch i s cons i s t entw i th the def endantdr i vi ng overt o the s outheas tpartof t ow n and lo o k in g to c o n f

ro n t J o s e p h R a m ir e z .” ). C . Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence atSent enci ng Hear i ng A y on nextcont ends thatthe U ni t ed St at es fai l ed t o s how bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thathe us ed a f i r earm i n connec t i on w i th the fe l onyoffe ns es of aggr avat ed a s s a u lt a n d s h o o tin g a t a d w e llin g o r f ro m a v e h ic le . In N e w M e x ic o , 2 [a ]gg rav ated assa u ltco n sist s o f e ith er: A . unl aw ful l yas s aul t i ng ors tr i ki ng atanotherw i th a dea dl yw eapon; B . comm i t t i ng as s aul tbythr eat eni ng orm enac i ng anotherw hi l e w ear i ng a m a sk , h o o d , ro b e o r o th e r c o v e rin g u p o n th e f a c e , h e a d o r b o d y , o r w h ile di s gui s ed i n anym anner , s o as t o conce al i dent i ty ; or C . w i l l ful l yand i nt ent i onal l yas s aul t i ng anotherw i th i nt entt o comm i tany f e l o n y. W h o e v e rc o m m i t s a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l ti s g u i l ty o f a f o u r th d e g r e e f

e l o n y. N .M . S TAT . A NN . § 3 0 -3 -2 (2 0 0 7 ). A ssau ltco n sist s o f e ith er:-10-

A . an att em p t t o co m m ita b att eryu p o n the p erso n o f a n o ther; B . anyunl aw ful act , thr eatorm enac i ng conductw hi ch ca us es another p e rso n to re a so n a b lyb e liev e th a t h e is in d a n g e r o f re c e iv in g a n im m e d iate batt ery ; or C . the u se o f in su lt ing lang u ag e tow ard an o ther im p u g n ing h is ho n o r, d e lic a c yo r r e p u ta tio n . Id. § 3 0 -3-1 . A s fo r sho o ti n g at a d w ell ing , it“c o n sist s o f w il lfu ll yd isch arg ing a f ir ea rm ata dw el l i ng oroccupi ed bui l di ng. W hoevercomm i t s s hoot i ng ata dw el l i ng oroccupi ed b u ild in g th a t d o e s n o t re su lt i n g re a t b o d ilyh a rm to a n o th e r p e rso n is g u iltyo f a f o u rth d e g re e f e lo n y .” Id . § 3 0 -3 -8 (A ). K i n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y w h i c h r e l a t e d M i c h a e l C a n d e l a r i a ’ s s t a t e m e n te s t a b l i s h e s , b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , tha t A y o n c o m m itt e d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt an d sh o o tin g a t a dw el l i ng. M i chae l t ol d K i ng thatA y on fi r ed a gun a tR ami r ez, es t abl i s hi ng thatA y on unl aw ful l yas s aul t ed R ami r ez w i th a dea dl yw eapon. See i d. § 30- 3- 2 ( aggr avat ed as s aul t ) . I tal s o es t abl i s hed thatA y on w i l l ful l ydi s char ged a f i r earm ata dw el l i ng or o c c u p i e d b u i l d i n g , s p e c i f i c a l l yRa mi r e z ’ s a p a r t me n tc o mp l e x . S e e i d . § 3 0 - 3 - 8 ( A) (s h o o tin g a t a d w e llin g ). A y on ar gues , how ever , thatM i chae l C andel ar i a’ s s t at ements houl d be di s r egar ded beca us e i ti s hear s ayl acki ng s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty . I f thats t at ementi s r emoved fr om cons i der at i on, A y on ar gues , then the onl yr el i abl e evi dence pr oduced a tthe hea r i ng as t o hi s cul pabi l i tyw as L aw r ence ’ s t es t i m onythatR ami r ez f i r ed fi r s t . A y on concl udes thatthe onl yr el i abl e evi dence ther efor e demonstr at ed thatA y on act ed i n s el f- defe ns e andI n an att empt t o di s cr edi tM i chae l ’ s s t at ement , A y on poi nt s t o M i chae l ’ s appar ent 3 u se o f m a riju a n a e a rlier in th e d a ya n d sp e c u late s th a t M ich a e l m a yh a v e b e e n sw a y e d to i m pl i cat e A y on outof fe arof bei ng char ged as an ac compl i ce, butcr edi bi l i tyi s an i s s ue forthe di s tr i ctcourt , notus , t o r es ol ve. Farns w or th, 92 F. 3d at1011 ( “‘ C r edi bi l i ty , of cour s e, i s a mat t erforthe di s tr i ctcourt , notthi s court . ’ ”) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. D ra p e r, 2 4 F .3 d 8 3 , 8 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) . -11- th e re f o re w a s n o t g u iltyo f

a f e lo n yo f f e n se . S e e P a n tela k is, 5 8 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 (“ A n in ten t to law f u llyd e f e n d o n e se lf

– e v e n w ith a n u n law f

u l w e a p o n – d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, w a rra n t a 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 5 ) e n h a n c e m e n t.” ). A s a r es ul t , w hethers uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t ed the four - l evel enhanc ement d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d M ich a e l’s h e a rsa ysta tem e n t in appl y i ng the enha ncement . A y on i s corr ectthatM i chae l ’ s s t at ementt o K i ng i s hear s ay beca us e i ti s an out - of- courts t at ementbei ng offe r ed t o s how thatA y on fi r ed fi r s t . See F ED . R . E V ID . 801( c) . Forhear s ayt o s erve as a bas i s fora s ent enci ng enhanc ement , t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r equi r e thata hea r s ays t at ementpos s es s “s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy . ” U . S. S. G . § 6A 1. 3( a) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. D aze y , 403 F. 3d 1147, 1177 n. 7 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s i s nota hi gh s t andar d, fori tr equi r es onl y“mi ni m al i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fennel l , 65 F. 3d 812, 813 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B eaul i eu, 893 F. 2d 1177, 1181 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 )). M icha el’s st atem en t po sses sed su ff ici en t i n d ici a o f re li ab il ityan d the d istri ct co u rt p rop erlyreli ed o n itto d eterm ine th at A y o n d id n o t act i n self-d ef en se. F ir st, M icha el’s 3 des cr i pt i on of w ho fi r ed w hatand w hen r oughl ym at ched w hatM uel l erhear d s ever alC i t i ng t o U ni t ed St at es v. G r egg, 467 F. 3d 1126 ( 8th C i r . 2006) , A y on ar gues t hat 4 the di s tr i ctcourtcoul d nothave us ed anyof Law r ence ’ s t es t i m onyt o s uppor tthe enhanc ementi f i tfound thatM i chae l ’ s t es t i m onyw as m or e cr edi bl e on the i s s ue of w ho f ire d f irst, o r e lse th e d istric t co u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n in ter n a lly i ncons i s t ent . See i d. at1129 ( “A court ’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs forpurpos es of ca l cul at i ng the appr opr i at e G ui del i ne r ange a nd fas hi oni ng a s ent ence under§ 3553( a) m us tbe i nt ernal l ycons i s t ent . ”) . Y etA y on does notexpl ai n w hyi tw oul d be i ncons i s t entfort he di s tr i ctcourtt o fi nd L aw r ence ’ s t es t i m onyt o be more cr edi bl e as t o s om e fa ct s , s uch as th e e v e n ts le a d in g u p to th e s h o o to u t, b u t n o t a s to o th e rs , s u c h a s th e s h o o to u t its e lf. -12- bl ocks aw ay . M i chae l t ol d K i ng thatA y on fi r ed fi r s tw i th a . 357 r evol ver , fol l ow ed by R a m ire z re tu rn in g f

ire w ith a sh o tg u n a n d V a llez sh o o tin g w ith a .2 2 p isto l. R O A , V o l. I V , at61- 62. M uel l ert es t i fi ed, cons i s t entw i th M i chae l ’ s des cr i pt i on, thathe hea r d a series o f “ large r-cali b er sh o ts . . . fo ll o w ed b ya se ri es o f w h at so u n d ed [li k e] sm all er, hi gher - pi t ched f

i r e, fi r i ng r ounds . ” I d. at8. A l though A y on corr ect l ynot es that M i chae l ’ s s t at ementand M uel l er ’ s t es t i m onydo notcorr es pond per fec t l y , the gene r al tr end i s the s ame i n both: a hi gh- cal i berw eapon w as fi r ed fi r s t( . 357 r evol ver ) , fol l ow ed b ys h o ts f

ro m a lo w e r- c a lib e r w e a p o n (.2 2 p is to l) . S ec o n d , as A y o n ’s ne p h ew , M icha el ha d a m o ti v e to m ak e u p a sto ryin A y o n ’s f avor , y e t in ste a d m a d e a sta tem e n t i ncr i m i nat i ngA y on. T hi r d, L aw r ence ’ s t es t i m ony c o rro b o ra tes th a t A y o n w e n t to R a m ire z ’s a p a rtm e n t to a ttac k R a m ire z . A c c o rd in g to 4 L aw r ence , befor e the s hoot i ng A y on thr eat ened t o beatR ami r ez up a nd t ol d R ami r ez that he w ant ed t o fi ght . See i d. at32 ( “‘ Y ou bett erbe pr epar ed t o gety ouras s w hooped’ and s hi tl i ke that . ”) , 42 ( “Q . A nd y ourunder s t andi ng w as he w as goi ng overther e bec aus e he w ant ed t o have a fi ghtw i th J os eph R ami r ez? A . Y es , s i r . ”) . W hen A y on arr i ved atthe compl ex, he t ol d R ami r ez t o come out s i de bec aus e theyw er e “gonna thr ow dow n. ” I d. at-13-

4 2 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). A lth o u g h L a w re n c e tes tifie d th a t A y o n o n ly w ant ed t o “fi ght ” R ami r ez a nd, s om ew hatpar adoxi cal l y , di d notw antt o “hurt ” R ami r ez, L aw r ence al s o expl ai ned thathe w as s o w orr i ed thats om ethi ng bad mi ghthappen – l i ke a s hoot i ng – thathe t agged a l ong t o t ryt o pr eventevent s fr om es cal at i ng. See i d. at27- 28, 42 ( “I s ai d, ‘ I ’ m goi ng t o go w i th y ou, ’ . . . beca us e I di dn’ tw antnothi ng el s e t o happen l i ke w hatdi d happen. ”) . Four th, A y on’ s di s hones tdeni al , w hen pul l ed overbyM uel l er m i nut es aft erthe s hoot i ng, thathe had he ar d gunfi r e, and hi s s ubs equents t oryabout“ki ds

. . . excha ngi ng gunfi r e, ” conf i r m thatA y on w as att empt i ng t o hi de cr i m i nal conduct . See id . a t 1 0 . Ay o n a l s o c o n t e n d s th a tth e f a c t s o f h i s c a s e a r e a n a l o g o u s t o F e n n e l l , i n wh i c h we r ever s ed a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of a f our - l evel enhanc ementunder§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) bas ed on a he ar s ays t at ementthatthe def endant ’ s form ergi r l fr i end made t o a pr obat i on offi cer . 65 F. 3d at813. W e not ed, i n part , thatthe form ergi r l fr i end had notm ade a s w orn s t at ementand ther e w er e no fa ct s i n the r ecor d corr obor at i ng heracc ountof the al l eged s hoot i ng. I d. W e hel d t hat“[u] ns w orn out - of- courts t at ement s m ade byan unobs erved w i tnes s and uns uppor t ed byotherevi dence form an i ns uffi ci entpr edi cat e for a s e n t e n c e e n h a n c e m e n tu n d e r2 K 2 . 1 ( b ) ( 5 ) . ” I d . a t8 1 4 . A yo n c o n t e n d s th a t , s i m i l a r l y, M icha el’s st atem en t w as u n sw o rn a n d there is no co rrob o rati n g ev iden ce to su p p o rt M ic h a e l’ s a c c u s a tio n th a t A y o n f ir e d f ir s t. F e n n e ll, h o w e v e r, is e a silyd istin g u ish e d . U n lik e th e p ro b a tio n o f f ice r in F e n n e ll, w ho i nt ervi ew ed the form ergi r l fr i end byt el ephone a nd ther efor e “di d nothave a nA l though A y on acknow l edges thatK i ng i nt ervi ew ed M i chae l i n per s on, A y on 5 all eg es th at K ing tho u g h t M icha el w as ly ing . A y o n ’s arg u m en t m isst ates K ing ’s t es t i m ony : K i ng thoughtthatM i chae l had l eftoutfac t s i n hi s fi r s ts t at ement , i n w hi ch he s ai d thathe di d notknow w ho had bee n fi r i ng w eapons atthe apa r t m entcompl ex, buthad “ d e c id e d to c o m e c le a n in th e s e c o n d s ta te m e n t” w h e n h e s a id th a t A y o n f ir e d f ir s t. R O A , V o l. I V , a t 8 6 . -14- oppor tuni tyt o obs erve herdemeanor , ” i d. at813, A y on admi t s thatK i ng i nt ervi ew ed M i chae l i n per s on, A pl t . O peni ng B r . at28- 29. A s a r es ul t , K i ng coul d obs erve w hether M i c h a e l a p p e a r e d t o b e t e l l i n g th e tru th . F u r th e r , M i c h a e l ’ s s t a t e m e n tw a s g i v e n o n l y a 5 few hour s aft erthe s hoot i ng occurr ed, w her eas the form ergi r l fr i end i n Fennel l w as i nt ervi ew ed af

t erthe def

endantpl ed gui l tyand the pr obat i on offi ce w as pr epar i ng the pr es ent ence r eport . See Fennel l , 65 F. 3d at813. B eca us e M i chae l ’ s s t at ementw as m ade cl os ert o the eve nti n ques t i on, hi s s t at ementi s m or e l i kel yt o be cr edi bl e. See Farns w or th, 92 F. 3d at1010 ( concl udi ng thata hea r s ays t at ementw as m or e r el i abl e than the one i n Fennel l beca us e i tw as “a c ont empora neous s t at ement[m ade] t o the arr es t i ng offi cer ”) . Fi nal l y , as not ed above , ther e is corr obor at i ng evi dence s uppor t i ng thatA y on f ir e d f ir s t. I n a fi nal r el at ed cha l l enge t o hi s s ent ence , A y on ar gues thatappl i cat i on of § 2 K 2 . 1 ( b ) ( 5 ) t o i n c r e a s e h i s s e n t e n c e v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s , u n d e rA p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y, 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , beca us e i ti nvol ved j udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng undera pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , n o t ju ryf a c t-f in d in g w h ich re q u ire s p ro o f b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . A pl t . O peni ng B r . at30- 32. A ppr endi appl i es w hen a s ent ence has been i ncr eas ed a b o v e th e sta tu to rym a x im u m b a se d o n a f a c t n o t f o u n d b ya ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le-15-

doubt . See U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i s , 476 F. 3d 1121, 1131 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . A ppr endi does notappl yw hen a f actfound bya j udge mer el yi ncr eas es the def endant ’ s G ui del i nes r a n g e wi th o u ti n c r e a s i n g th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e a b o v e th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m. I d . As a r es ul t , A y on’ s s eventy - m onth s ent ence di d notvi ol at e A ppr endi beca us e i tdi d not e x c e e d th e te n -ye a r s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (a )( 2 ). II I. B eca us e M i chae l ’ s s t at ementt o K i ng thatA y on fi r ed fi r s tatR ami r ez pos s es s es s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n r el y i ng upon i tt o fi nd t hat A y on us ed orpos s es s ed anyfi r earm i n connec t i on w i th the fe l onyoffe ns es of aggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng ata bui l di ng pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . W e A FFIRM t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c e o f s e v e n ty m o n th s . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge