NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0715n.06 Filed: Oc tober 3, 2007 No. 06-6183
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. ELRICO MAXON, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE WEST ERN D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEFORE: MARTIN, G UY and CLAY , Circuit Judges
. CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant, Elrico Maxon, appe als from the judgme nt e ntere d by the distric t c o u rt s e n te n c in g h im to 4 8 mo n th s im

p r is o n me n t t o b e f

o ll o w e d b y 3 y e ar s o f

s u p e r vised
r e l e a s e f o r h i s c o n v i c t i o no n o n e c o u n to f b e i n g a f e l o ni np o s s e s s i o no f

a f i r e ar m . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, D e f e n d an t c h a ll e n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s a p p li c a ti o no f

a f o u r - le v e l e n h an c e me n t p u r s u ant t o § 2K2.1(b)( 5) of the U nited States Sentencing Guidelines. F or the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.
BACK GR OUNDNo. 06-6183

A “muzzl e fla sh” is a “f

lash of lig ht cause d by

the rea ction betwee n ox y g en and the burning 1 g a se s w hic h e sc a

pe fo rm the ba rr e l of a g un be hin d the b ul le t up on

fi ri ng .” Oxf

or d E ng lis h Dictionary

(2003). 2 On No v em b er

2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , a f

ed er al gra n d

j u ry i n d i ct edDe fe n d an to no n e co u n to f b ei n g a felo n in possession of a fire arm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). The c onduct under ly ing the ind ic tme nt o c c ur

re d o n M arc h 6 , 20 05
. De fe nd ant ha d re c e ntl y a c qu ir e d a ne w ri fl e and a pp are ntl y decide d to te s t fi re t h e wea pon from the patio of his apartment. Of fice rs on foot patrol in the apar tment complex heard the gunfire a nd observe d muzz le flashe s, responde d to the point of orig in, 1 and found D efe ndant there . Def endant a dmitted ownership of the wea pon and confe ssed that he had fired it. De fenda

nt ha d a previous felony conviction and, acc ording ly , the office rs ar rested him for possession of a fir ear

m. Defe ndant pled guilty on J une 9, 2006. I n an ti c ip a ti o no f

s e n te n c in g , th e U
. S. Pr o b a ti o nO f f ic e r c o mp il e d

a Pr e - Se n te n ce I nvestig ation Report (he reina fter “ PSR ”). D efe ndant’s PSR provided for a ba se offe nse level of 20 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (her einaf ter “the Guidelines”)
. The PSRapplied a fo ur -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt u

nd e r § 2K2. 1( b) (5 ) o f t

he Gu ide lin e s f

or us e of a fi re arm in c onne c tio n w ith another felony offe nse, thus y ielding a total offense level of 24. A n ad d i t i onal two-leve l
e nh anc e me nt f

or ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e purs ua

nt to § 3 C1. 1 in c re a se d D e fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e le ve l to 26. Def endant fell into Criminal History Categ ory I I I and, acc ording ly , the PSRset forth a n advisory Guidelines ra

ng e of 78 to 97 months. On Septembe r

7 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d is tric t c ourt conduc ted Def endant’ s sentencinghear ing a nd hear d testimony from go v er n m ent witnesses. The district judge reje cted the two- level enha nceme nt for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1, findingit unwarra nted in this case. Additionally , he cr editedNo. 06-6183

3 Def endant with a thr ee- level re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . Howeve r, over Def endant’ s objections, the district judg e did apply the four- level enhance ment under § 2K2.1(b)( 5). Thus, t he district judg e calc ulated a total of fense level of 21 which, when taken with a Crimin al History Categ ory I I I , y ielded an a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 46 to 57 months. The district cour

t ex p re s s l y acknow ledg ed the a dvisory nature of the Guide lines and, subsequently , invited counsel to discuss the re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors. The g overnme nt stressed the seriousness of D ef

en d ant’s conduc t and his criminal history , which included c onvictions for attempted sec ond deg ree murder a nd ag g ravated assault. The g ov er n m ent further ar g ued that the need to de ter simil ar co n d u ct and to protect the community rende red a

sentenc e within the Gu ide lin e s rang e a

pp ro pr iate
. De fe nd ant sou g ht a dow nw ard de pa rt ur e on the ba sis of

the “ unus ua l” circ umstances supportingthe § 2K2.1(b) (5) e nhance ment – specific ally , that Def endant did not fire the g un with bad intent but me rely did “ a rea l stupid thing.” (J.A. at 44-45.) Ultimately , the district court sente nced D efe ndant t o 48 months im prisonment and thre e y ear s of supervise d rele ase. Def endant timely

appea led. DI SCU SSIO N A . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w Whe the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y c on c lud e d that De fe nd ant use d or pos se sse d a fi re arm in
connec tion with another felony offe nse under § 2K2.1(b)( 5) of the Guidelines constitutes a mix ed qu e sti on of law an d f

a c t th a t th is C ourt

re vie ws de novo
. United States v. Layne , 324 F.3d 464, 468 (6th Cir. 2003). This Court revie ws the district c ourt’s underly ing fac tual finding s for c lear err or. Id.No. 06-6183

4 B. Guidelines En hancem ent P ursuan t to § 2K 2.1(b)(5) Def endant c halleng es the district cour t’s application of a four- level sente ncing enhanc ement pursuant to § 2K2. 1 (b )(5) of the Guide lines. Be fore the district court be low, Def endant f iled a position paper in re sponse to the PSR , raising an objection to the four- level enha nceme nt pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)( 5). Def

endant admitted to discharg ing the wea pon, but claimed that he “wa s car eful to aim it in t he sky , not in the direction of a ny buildings, and c erta inly

no t i n t h e d i re ction of any pers on .” (J .A. at 12 .) De fe nd ant f ur the r n ote d th a t th e Te nn e sse e state c ourt c ha rg e d h im w ith misdemeanor r eckle ss endang erme nt. At Def endant’ s sentenc ing hear ing, he ag ain objecte d to the § 2K2.1(b)( 5) enha

nceme nt, assertingmany

of the a rg uments articulate d in his posit ion paper
. At the sentenc ing hear ing, the prosec ution c alled Offic er Billy Gra y , the ar resting office r at the sce ne. Of

fice r Gra y testified that h e and two other office rs wer e patr olling the Peppe r Tre e Apar tments on March 6, 2005 a round 9:00 p.m. Gray

rec alled that, aside fr om the office rs, others
we re pr e se nt o uts ide the a pa rtme nt c omp le x that ni g ht “ wa lki ngto a nd fr om. ” (J.A . at 38 .) Whil e on patrol, the off

icer s hear d sever al g unshots, and throug h the dar kness o u t s i d e, they

observe d
muzz le flashe s coming fr o m a u n i t approxim ately 30 fee t away . Offic er G ray indicated that they
we re “all under

the impression that the g un was shot in [t heir] direction” a nd that they

hear d the b u l l et s g o over the ir hea ds befor e hitting a wall. ( Id . at 31-32.) H e surmised that the gun was pointed at an ang le when fired a nd not straig ht up in the air. The of fice rs identified a

bottom-floor apar tment as the orig in of the shot s, and they approa ched to investigate. Gra y stated t hat t hey

found thr e e or fo ur me n sta

nd ing on the po rc h whe n the y a rr ive d an d ide nti fi e d a

.2 2- c a lib e r r if

le a g a ins tNo. 06-6183

5 the porc h wall. When asked by the officers, Defe ndant admit ted ownership of t he rifle and that he h ad fi red it. The office rs subsequently arr ested De fenda

nt for possession of the f irea rm.

F oll ow ingOf

fi c e r G ra y ’s te sti mony , th e dis tr ic t c ourt fr a me d th e iss ue a s f

oll ow s: Th e qu e sti on

is, is i t th e ty

pe of reckle ss c on du c t th a t c an r e su lt i n in jur y and re c kle ss endan ger m en t
. Nobody

is saying that defe ndant – and the of fice r is not saying that the defe ndant was try

ing to shoot them or try

ing to shoot any

b o d y . I f he w as trying to shoot somebody

and ther e had been somebody flee ing, he was in some ty pe of c onfrontation, the char g e wouldn’t have bee n rec kless endang erme nt.

. . . T he pr ob le m is tha

t pe op le g e t hurt fr om thi s ty pe of a c tiv ity . I t is e xtre me ly

tho ug htl e ss. I t is dang erous just in and of itself, a nd that’s the proble m. . . . (J.A . at 37- 39 .) At the c los e of the he ari ng , ju st b e fo re imp os ing a se nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t ju dg e a g a in
re fe re nc e d th e e nh anc e me nt: [Defense counsel has] c onvinced me that there was no malintent in f iring the wea

pon, but he has a lso convinced me that it was a re ally bad idea , whi ch i t was, a nd Iam c on vin c e d th a t so me on e c ou ld h a ve be e n hur t, a nd that is re c kle ss e nd ang e rm e nt. (I d. at 47.) Thus, the c ourt conc luded that the four- level enhanc ement applied in D efe ndant’s ca se. Se c tio n 2 K2 .1 (b )( 5) of

the Gu ide lin e s pro vid e s f

or a fo ur -l e ve l in c re a se to a

de fe nd ant’ s b a se of fe ns e le ve l “ [i]f the de fe nd ant u se d o r po sse sse d a ny fi re arm or a mmunit ion

in c onne c tio n w ith another felony offe nse.” U .S. Sentencing Gu i d el i n es Manua l § 2K2.1(b)( 5) (2005) . “F elony offe nse” is def

ined as “ any

offe nse (f

eder al, state, or local) punishable by imprisonment for a ter

m exceedingone y ear , wh et h er or not a cr iminal charg e wa s broug ht, or a c onviction obtained.” Id. cmt. n.4. Moreove r, “[t] he burde n is on the g overnme nt t o p ro v e, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that a par

ticular sente ncing enhanc ement applies.” United St ates v. Dupre e , 323 F.3d 480, 491 (6th Cir. 2003).No. 06-6183

6 I n Tenne ssee, r eckle ss endang erme nt with a deadly wea pon constitutes a Class E fe lony punishable for a term of imprisonment exceedingone y ear . T EN N . C ODE ANN . § 39 -1 3- 10 3; id . at § 40-35-111( b)(5) . A def endant c ommits rec kless en d an ger m en t with a deadly wea pon if he

“ re c kle ssl y e ng a g e s in c on du c t that pla c e s or may pla c e ano the r pe rs on in i mmi ne nt d ang e r o f d e a th
or ser ious bodily

injury .” T EN N . C ODE ANN . § 39-13-103. Unde r the Te nnessee code, “R e c k le s s ” r e f

e r s to a p e r s o nw h o a c ts r e c k le s s ly w it h r e s p e c t t o c ir cumstance s surroundingthe conduc t or the re sult of the conduc t when the pe rson is awa re of but c on sc iou sly

dis re g ard s a

su bs tanti a l and

un jus tif ia ble ri sk t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s e xist or the re sult will occur . Id. a t § 39 -1 1- 30 2( c ). “ I mmi ne nt da ng e r” oc c ur s wh e n a pe rs on is “ pla c e d in a reas on able probability

of dang er a s opposed t o a mere poss ibilit y of dang er.” State v. Pay ne , 7 S.W .3d 25, 28 (T en n . 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g State v. Fox , 947 S.W. 2d 86 5, 86 6 (T e nn . Ct. App . 199 6) ). Whe re the vic tim is the “ pu bli c a t la rg e ,” a s p e rm itt e d un de r Te nn e sse e law, the g ov e rnme nt mus t sh ow that at le a st one per son was pre sent within the “z one of da ng er.” Id. The “ zone of dang er” consists of “that ar ea in which a r easona

ble proba bility exis ts that the defe ndant’s conduc t would place othe rs in imminent dang er of death or serious bodily

injury if others we re pr esent in that zone or ar ea.” Id
. On appe al, Def

endant a rg ues that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support a fi n d ing that his conduct plac ed others in imminent dang er. Def endant’ s argument seems to hinge on the fa ct that Def endan t fi re d the g un into the air, not in the direc tion of any one in the surr ounding a rea . Her e, Def endant r elies on Sta te v . B ald win , No. 01C01-9612-CR-00530, 1 9 9 8 WL 4 2 6 1 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 29, 1998) (unpublished). I n Ba ldw in , the defe ndant shot a barte nder in a small an d n ar row restaur ant. Id . at *1, 4. On the theor y that “the bull et co u l d have r icoche ted off one of the meta l appliance s” to strike a c ustomer seated direc tly behind the def

endant, the tr ial court c onvicted theNo. 06-6183

7 defe ndant of fe lony

rec kless endang erme nt of the customer
. Id . at *4. The a ppeals c ourt observe d that “discha

rg ing a wea pon under c ircumstance s ‘wher e a stray bullet might possibly

strike another person’ is insufficient to support a convic tion for re ckless enda ng erme nt.” Id . There , the conviction was ba sed on “me re spe culation” that t h e cu s t omer c ould have be en hit, and the e vidence was there fore insufficient to prove the eleme nts bey ond a re asonable doubt. Id. I n our view, Ba ldw in do e s n ot c on tr ol t he ins tant c a se. F ir st, a s th is C ourt pr e vio us ly observe d in a fac tually simil ar case , “the applicable burden of proof in a crimi n al p rosec ution (beyond a reasonable doubt) is . . . differ ent from the sta ndard of proof r equire d for the a

pplication of a sentenc ing enhanc ement under the Guidelines (pre pondera nce of the evidence – so longas the sentenc e does not exceed the statutory maxi mum).” United States v. Lester , N o . 0 6

- 5 0 4 3 , 2 0 0 7 WL 1804350, at *5 (6th Cir. J une 25, 2 0 0 7 ) (u npublished). Second, it is fac tually inapposite. The defe ndant in Ba ldw in could only strike one pe rson behind the b ar , an d endang erme nt of others
ne c e ssa ri ly wo uld re qu ir e the bu lle t to ri c oc he t and c on tin ue on wi th e no ug h f

or c e to c a us e ha rm . I n the instant case , Def

endant shot his rifle in the da rk of nig ht from hi s p at io in a residential apar tment complex i n the g ener al direc tion of another pa rt of the compl ex. Additi onally , Offic er Gra y testified that he he ard bullets over his head a

nd that besides the office rs, other individuals wer e prese nt outside the complex. The instant recor d supports more th an “mer e spec ulation” that the bullet could strike another person. I ndeed, the office rs and others wer e “subje cted to a muc h g reater risk of har

m than the customer in Ba ldw in .” Lester , 2007 WL1804350, at *5. Another Te nnessee case , State v. Fox , 9 47 S.W. 2d 86 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 6) , is fa c tua lly c los e r t o the case at bar . I n Fox , the defendant fired a pistol into the air or i nto a tree
. Id . at 865. Howe ver,No. 06-6183

8 the Te nn ess ee ap pe a ls c ourt fo un d in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s us ta in h is c onvic tio n f or re c kle ss endang erme nt beca

use there “wa s no testimony that any one wa s either in the tree being fired upon
or outside the apar

tment building in the immediate vicinity of the [defe ndant].” Id. Yet, the instant
case is readily

distinguishable. Agai n , De fe n d an t fired the gun into the air, or on a diag onal tr a je c tor y , in the g e ne ra l di re c tio n o f t he of fi c e rs . Th e of

fi c e rs we re sta

nd ingou tsi de on

the patio of ano the r u

nit a pp ro xima te ly

30 fe e t awa

y , a nd Offi cer Gr ay

he ard a bu lle t f ly ov e r t he of fi c e rs ’ heads. Eve n if Def

endant f ired the bullet into the air, ba sic principles o f gra vity dictate that what comes up g ener ally

must come down. B y

shooting the gun into th e air while others stood in the “immediate vicinity ,” Defenda nt place d those individuals in a “r easona ble proba bility of dang er.” See Payne , 7 S.W .3d at 28. I n t h e ins tant case , we f

ind that the g overnme nt met its burden, and ac cording ly , that the district court did not err in a pply ing the enhanc ement under § 2K2.1(b)( 5) of the Guide lines. The
rec ord indicate s th at Defendant fir ed a gun into the air, or in a dia g onal traje ctory , in a re sidential apar tment complex i n the dar

k. The rec ord further indicates that the of fice rs hea rd bullets g o over the ir he a ds be fo re hittin g a wa ll. No t on ly we re the of

fi c e rs ou tsi de the c omp le x, bu t ot he r p e op le
wer e outside as we ll, “walking to and from.” (J.A. at 28.) Defe ndant’s conduc t placed the office rs and other s outside “in a rea sonable probability of dang er” when he fired the rifle into the air in an
are a wher e others, including the arr esting office r, wer e pre sent. See Payne , 7 S.W .3d at 28. As the dis tr ic t jud g e ob se rv e d, a .2 2- c a lib e r bu lle t that str ike s a pe rs on a t a ra ng e of 30 fe e t “ c ou ld d o s ome damag e.” ( J .A. at 39.) O bviously , serious bodily injury , if not death, c ould follow.No. 06-6183

9 Con se qu e ntl y , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in a pp lying§ 2K 2. 1( b) (5 ) of

the Gu ide lin e s to
e nh anc e De fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e by fo ur le ve ls. CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th is C ourt AF F IRMS the district court judg ment.