FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DE CEM B ER 5 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12640 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -002 09 -C R -H -N U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D O N A L D C A L D W E L L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t h e Mi d d l e Di s t r i c t o f Al a b a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 5, 2005) B efo re C A R N E S , P R Y O R a n d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ef endant -app el l antD on al d C al dw el l w as conv i ct ed of po ss es si on of a f ir e a r m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) . O n ap p e a l,Under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) , “[ i] f the de fenda nt . . . possessed all ammunition and 1 firea rms s olely

for law ful sportingpurposes or c ollection, and did not unlawfully discharg e or oth erwise unlawfully

use such f

irea rms or ammunition, decre ase theoffense leve l determined . . . to level 6.” At least one court has held that “plinking ” (shootingat ca ns) qualifies a s sporting pur poses 2 under § 2K2.1(b)( 2). United States v. B ossinger, 12 F .3d 28, 29 (3d Cir. 1993). 2 C a ld w e ll c h a lle n g e s th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s to h is o f f e n s e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , h e c o n t e n d s th a th e wa s e n t i t l e d t o a r e d u c t i o n u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 2) ba s e d on hi s br othe r ’ s pos s e s s i on of the f i r e a rm f ors por t i ng 1 pu rposes . A cc ordi ng t o C al dw el l , hi s posse ss i on of hi s brother’ s s po rt i ng ri fl e - f orthe s ol e purpos e of

pa w ni ng the f

i r e a rm i n or de rt o di s pos s e s s i t- qua l i f i e s f or th e r e d u c t i o n . W e d i s a g r e e a n d th e r e f o r e a f f i rm. T h e ev i d en ce attri al est ab l i sh ed th atC al d w el l w as o n su p erv i sed rel ease f o l l o wi n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d i m p r i s o n m e n tf o ra c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e . He w a s liv in g in a h o u s e o n 1 1 9 a c r e s o f la n d th a t b e lo n g e d to th e C a ld w e ll f a m ily . C a ld w e ll a n d h is s ib lin g s a ll h a d a c c e s s a n d r ig h ts to th e h o u s e , b u t o n ly C a ld w e ll a n d h is tw o b r o th e r s , C h a r le s a n d H e n ry , w e r e o n th e p r o p e r ty w ith a n y r e g u la r ity . C a l dw e l l kne w tha tthe c ondi t i ons of hi s r e l e a s e pr ohi bi t e d hi m f r om r e c e i vi ng, p o s s e s s in g , o rtr a n s p o r tin g a f ir e a rm . C ha r l e s C a l dw e l l r e c e i ve d a . 22 c a l i be rr i f l e , w hi c h w a s a ty pe of

gun c om m onl y us e d f

ors por t i ng, a s c ol l a t e r a l on a l oa n t o a f r i e nd. C ha r l e s us e d the gu n t o sho otatca ns. W i tho utC al dw el l ’ s or H enry ’ s kno w l edge, C harl es st ored 23

th e f ir e a r m in th e f

a m ily h o m e h id d e n b e h in d th e k itc h e n c ab in e ts . W hi l e c l e a ni ng the ki t c he n one da y , C a l dw e l l f ound the f

i r e a rm . B e c a us e he kne w he c oul d notpos s e s s the f i r e a rm , he c a l l e d C ha r l e s a nd r e que s t e d he r e tr i e ve the gun. C ha r l e s , how e ve r , w a s outof t ow n f orw ork a nd w a s unabl e t o r e m ove the gun. W he n C a l dw e l l r e a l i z e d C ha r l e s w a s una va i l abl e , C a l dw e l l t ook the gun t o the pa w n s hop a nd pa w ne d i tf or$20. H e c l a i m s he di d thi s t o ge tr i d of the gun a n d b e c a u s e h e th o u g h t h e w a s c o m p ly in g w ith th e la w . C a ld w e ll, h o w e v e r , d id n o t c a ll h is p r o b a tio n o f f ic e ro rH e n ry to r e m o v e th e f ir e a rm , n o rd id h e te ll C ha r l e s tha the pa w ne d the gun, norgi ve C ha r l e s the pa w n s l i p orthe m one y he r e c e i ve d. C a l dw e l l ne ve rr e turne d t o the pa w n s hop t o pi c k up the gun. D u r in g a n in te r v ie w r e la te d to a s e p a r a te in c id e n t, C a ld w e ll in f o rm e d h is pr oba t i on of

f i c e rtha the ha d pa w ne d a r i f l e . T he of

f i c e rc ont a c t e d the A T F , w ho retri ev ed th e g u n , an d C al d w el l w as i n d i ct ed fo r p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) . C a ld w e ll’s th e o ry o f

d e f e n s e w a s th a t, b y p a w n in g th e g u n to d is p o s s e s s it, he l ac ked the re qu i si t e i nt entt o p osse ss a f i re arm un der § 92 2(g). T he court i nstruct ed the j ury thati tshou l d fi nd C al dw el l gu i l ty i f i tdet erm i ned thathe had know i ngl y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m , a nd i tde f

i ne d “ know i ngl y ” a s vol unt a r i l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y. C al dw el l re qu es t ed thatthe j ury be i nstruct ed that4

[ i ] ti s the the ory of

the de f e ns e tha tD ona l d C a l dw e l l ’ s a c t i ons of ta k in g th e r if

le f r o m h is h o m e to th e p a w n s h o p a n d p a w n in g th e r if le w a s done t o di s pos s e s s the f i r e a rm f r om hi m s e l f

. B e c a us e he w a s not p e r m itte d to p o s s e s s a f ir e a rm , o n c e h e d is c o v e r e d th e f ir e a rm a t h is hom e i n a n a r e a w he r e he ha d a c c e s s t o i t , he w oul d be i n vi ol a t i on of the l aw un der 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). Y ou m ayfi nd thathe w as ju s tif ie d in ta k in g th e a c tio n s th a t h e to o k in o r d e rto s e p a r a te h im s e lf fr om the fi re arm and avo i d b ei ng i n p osse ss i on of i t . If you fi nd that he w a s j us t i f

i e d i n t a ki ng s uc h a c t i on, y ou m a y r e turn a ve r di c tof not g u ilty , d e s p ite th e f

a c t th a t h e n e c e s s a r ily h a d to p o s s e s s th e f ir e a rm in o r d e rto d e ta c h h im s e lf

f r o m it. T h e c o u r t r e f

u s e d to g iv e th e in s tru c tio n , c o n c lu d in g th a t it w a s n o t a n a c c u r a te s ta te m e n t o f

th e la w . C a ld w e ll w a s c o n v ic te d . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s i gni ng a ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

14 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 6) w i th no e nha nc e m e nt s orr e duc t i ons . C a l dw e l l ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory I I I r e s ul t e d i n a g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f

2 1 to 2 7 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. C a l dw e l l r a i s e d thr e e obj e c t i ons t o the P S I : ( 1) he s houl d r e c e i ve a r e duc t i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty bec ause he w entt o tri al on l y t o rai se a l egal d e f e n s e ; ( 2 ) h i s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l s h o u l d h a v e b e e n 6 u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 K 2. 1(b)(2) because hi s brother posse ss ed the fi re arm for s po rt i ng pu rposes onl y ; a nd ( 3) he w a s e nt i t l e d t o a dow nw a r d de pa r tur e unde rU . S . S . G . §§ 5K 2. 0 or 5 K 2 .1 6 . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the c our ts us t a i ne d the f i r s tobj e c t i on a nd i nc l ude d aUnited States v. Keever, 2003 WL1192591 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2003) (unpublished). 3 5 re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty bec ause C al dw el l consi st ent l y had ad m i tt ed h i s co n d u ct . C al d w el l rest at ed h i s arg u m en tth ath e w as en t i t l ed t o a b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

6 unde r§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 2) be c a us e C ha r l e s pos s e s s e d the f i r e a rm f or the s ol e purpos e of

s por t i ng. H e c l a i m e d tha tthi s gui de l i ne r e duc t i on s houl d be read l i b eral l y t o ex t en d t o h i s p o ssessi o n o f h i s b ro th er’ s sp o rt i n g fi rearm b ecau se t o r e a d § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 2) na rr ow l y w oul d l e a d t o abs ur d r e s ul t s . C a l dw e l l ur ge d the c o u r t to c o n s id e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is p o s s e s s io n - th a t h e d id n o t k n o w h is br othe rl e f

tthe gun i n the hous e , tha the a dm i tt e d hi s c onduc t , a nd tha the ha d no s im ila rp r io rc o n v ic tio n s . T h e c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e r e d u c tio n d id n o t ap p ly to C a l dw e l l ’ s c onduc te ve n i f C ha r l e s pos s e s s e d the f i r e a rm f orthe s ol e purpos e of sport i ng . N ot i ng thatthere w as no bi nd i ng ca se l aw on po i nt , the courtci t ed an unpubl i s he d E i ghth C i r c ui t c a s e de a l i ng w i th s i m i l a rf a c t s tha the l d tha tthe 3 r e duc t i on w a s notw a rr a nt e d. A s the c our te xpl a i ne d, C a l dw e l l ’ s pos s e s s i on of the gu n t o p aw n i tdi d n otqu al i fyas a s po rt i ng pu rpose. N everthel es s, the court g r a n te d a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e to r e a c h w h a t it c o n c lu d e d w a s a r e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e . A c c or di ngl y , the c our tr e duc e d the of f e ns e l e ve l t o 10, w hi c h, w i th the c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry I I I , r e s u lte d in a g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 0 to 1 6 m o n th s . T he courti m po se d a se nt ence of 12 m on ths and 1 day, w hi ch i tdet erm i ned w asCaldwell also challeng es the suff i ciency of the evidenceand the jury instruction that 4 e xclude d his the or

y of thede fens e . A fter a

tho rough re view o f t

here c ord, wec on c ludethat th e se arguments are without merit. Caldw e ll a dmitte d po sse ssing the fire arm and his ne c e ssity def ens e do e s n ot n e g ate his intent under § 922( g ). Th ere fo re , his suf fi c iency of thee videnc eargument f

ails . Unite d State s v. De leva

ux, 20 5 F .3 d 12 92 , 12 97 (1 1th Cir . 20 00 ). Mo re ov er, a ne c e ssi ty defe nse is applicable in § 922(g) prose cutions only under ex traordina

ry ci rc umstances a

nd require s the defendant to show “(1) that the defendant was under unlawful and present, immi nent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury ; (2) that the de fenda nt did not neglig ently

or re cklessly

place himself in a situation wherehe would be f orce d to eng ag e in criminal c onduct; (3) that the de fenda nt had no re asonableleg al altern at i v e t o v i olating thelaw; and (4) that therewas a direc t causal relationship b etwe en th e criminal action and the avoidanceof the thre atene d harm.”I d.; see also United States v. Dicks, 338 F .3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, the fac ts of the case do not support a jus tification defense. United States v. Rice, 214 F .3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2000) (holdingthat defense wa s not applicable when def endant wa s not subject to immediate threat of physical injury ). There fore , we a ffirm theseissues without further discussion. 6 re as on abl e a nd suff

i ci entt o m ee tthe se nt enci ng fa ct ors of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) b e c a u s e th e c a s e n e e d e d a s tr o n g le v e l o f d e te rr e n c e . C a ld w e ll n o w ap p e a ls ch al l en g i n g th e g u i d el i n es cal cu l at i o n s. 4 C al dw el l ar gu es thatthe courtshou l d h ave app l i ed the base offe nse l evel unde r§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 2) be c a us e hi s br othe row ne d the f i r e a rm f orthe s ol e purpos e of s p o r tin g . H e a s s e r ts th a t th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e g u id e lin e d o e s n o t lim it its ap p l i c a t i o n t o th o s e c a s e s i n wh i c h th e p o s s e s s i o n i s r e l a t e d t o th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s o wn sp o rt i n g p u rp o ses, an d h e n o t es th atth e co m m en t ary d o es n o tex p l ai n w h o se s p o r tin g p u rp o s e is r e le v a n t. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr ora nd the appl i c a t i on of

the gui de l i ne s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , N o. 04- 12485, s l i p op. a t161 ( 11th C i r . O c t . 5, 2005) . A f t e rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . –, 125Be causethe district court sentenced Caldwell under a n advisory

guidelines schemeand 5 without any

extra-verdict enhanc ements, thereis no Booker error. 7 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is s till r e q u ir e d to c o rr e c tly 5 ca l cul at e the gu i del i nes r ange, and the sa m e s t andards of re vi ew appl y. S ee L ee , s lip o p . a t 1 6 1 ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U nd erU . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1, the base offe nse l evel for posse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed fe l on i s 14. U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(a) (6). T he gu i del i nes provi de, how e ve r , “ [ i ] f

the de f e nda nt. . . , pos s e s s e d a l l a m m uni t i on a nd f i r e a rm s s ol e l y f

or l a w f ul s por t i ng purpos e s orc ol l e c t i on, a nd di d notunl a w f ul l y di s c ha r ge or otherw i se un l aw ful l y use such fi re arm s or a m m un i t i on , decr ea se the offens e l evel det erm i ned abo ve t o l evel 6. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(b)(2). A s the com m ent ary e x p la in s ,

‘ l a w f ul s por t i ng purpos e s orc ol l e c t i on’ a s de t e rm i ne d by the su rro u n d i n g ci rcu m st an ces, p ro v i d es fo r a red u ct i o n t o an o ffen se l evel of 6. R el evantsurr ou nd i ng ci rc um st ance s i ncl ud e the nu m ber a nd ty pe of

f i r e a r m s , the a m ounta nd ty pe of a m m uni t i on, the l oc a t i on a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

pos s e s s i on a nd a c tua l us e , the na tur e of the defe nd ant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory ( e. g. , pri or conv i ct i on s f or offe nses i nv ol vi ng fi re arm s) , and the ext entt o w hi ch po ss es si on w as re stri ct ed b y lo c a l la w . U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 7) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G odf r e y , 22 F . 3d 10 48 , 10 55 -56 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( l i st i ng the surr ou nd i ng ci rc um st ance s und er c o n s id e r a tio n ) . C a ld w e ll h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g h e is e n title d to th e r e d u c tio n .8

U ni t ed S t at es v. W yc off, 91 8 F . 2d 92 5 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). T hi s c ou rthas notaddres se d the appl i ca t i on of § 2 K 2. 1(b)(2) und er c i r c um s t a nc e s s uc h a s C a l dw e l l ’ s . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r i s t ow , 110 F . 3d 7 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d th e a u th o r ity to g r a n t a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e w h e n d e f e n d a n t’s f

ir e a rm p o s s e s s io n in v o lv e d ta k in g h is f a the r ’ s f i r e a r m a nd pa w ni ng i tt o pa y of f f i na nc i a l de bt s , butnota ddr e s s i ng ap p li ca ti o n o f § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 2 )) ; W yc o ff , 9 1 8 F .2 dat 9 2 5 (r ejec ti n g d ef en d an t’ s c l a i m tha the pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m f ors por t i ng purpos e s w he n the pol i c e f ound hi m w i th the gun i n hi s ha nds , he r e f us e d t o r e l e a s e the f

i r e a rm upon r e que s t , a nd h e s ta te d th a t h e h a d th e g u n f o rs e lf - d e f e n s e ) . C a ld w e ll r e lie s o n s e v e r a l c a s e s f r o m o th e rc ir c u its to s u p p o r t h is p o s itio n . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . M o

jic a , 2 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , th e T e n th C ir c u it h e ld th at § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 2 ) w as n o t l im it ed to th o se situ atio n s in w h ich th e d ef en d an t’ s po ss es si on re l at ed t o h i s ow n l aw ful sport i ng pu rposes . Id. at11 71 . In thatca se , the defendant , w ho l i ved w i th h i s brother a nd hi s ni ec e, t oo k a shot gu n h i s brother had b orrow ed for s po rt i ng back t o i t s ow ner t o rem ov e i tfr om hi s posse ss i on af t er hi s ni e c e i nf

or m e d pol i c e tha tthe r e w a s a gun i n the hous e . I d. a t1170. T he ci rcu i tco u rtco n cl u d ed th atth e co m m en t ary d i d n o tcl ari fy w h o se sp o rt i n g p u rp o se w a s r e l a t e d t o the pos s e s s i on, a nd i ns truc t e d c our t s t o c ons i de rthe s urr oundi ngHere, in deter mining that the reduction wa s inapplicable, th e d i s tri ct court relied on an 6 unpublished opinion from the E i ghth Circuit in which the cour t rejec ted the application of § 2K2.1(b)( 2) when the defendant possessed the f irea rm for thesole purpose of pawningit, even though thegun’s owner

told the defendant th at he used the fire arm for sporting. United States v. Ke e ver, 57 F e d. Appx. 7 19 (8 th C ir . 2 00 3) (u npub lis he d) . N ota

bly, in Ke e ver, theEi ghth

Circuit of fere d littl edis cus sio n toe xplain h owthec a se wa s distinguis ha blefrom M oit

and Ramire z-Rios . 9 ci rc um st ance s. Id. at17 72 . C on si deri ng the surr ou nd i ng ci rc um st ance s, the court c onc l ude d tha tthe r e duc t i on appl i e d. I d. a t1172- 73. S i m i l ar l y, i n U ni t ed S t at es v. M oi t , 10 0 F . 3d 60 5, 60 5-06 (8th C i r. 19 96 ), the E i ghth C i r c ui tappl i e d the gui de l i ne w he n a de f e nda ntke pthi s f

a the r ’ s gun c ol l e c t i on a tthe de f

e nda nt ’ s hous e e ve n though he w a s notthe c ol l e c t ora nd the guns w e r e notf

ound i n l oc a t i ons c ons i s t e ntw i th c ol l e c t i on purpos e s . A s the E i gh th C i rc ui texpl ai ned, “ i ti s a l so re as on abl e t o i nt erpret[§ 2K 2. 1(b)(2)] as [a p p lyin g to a d ef

en d an t’ s] b en ig n p o ss es sio n o f a fire ar m u se d so lely fo r a n o th er ’s s por t i ng . . . purpos e s . ” I d. ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z - R i os , 270 F . 3d 1185, 1187 ( 8th C i r . 2001) ( r e j e c t i ng r e duc t i on be c a us e de f e nda nt ’ s w i f

e ow ne d the w eap o n s fo r p ro t ect i o n , b u tex p l ai n i n g th atan o th er p erso n ’ s sp o rt i n g p u rp o se coul d b e i m pu t ed t o a defendant )) . 6 I n c ontr a s t , othe rc i r c ui t s ha ve notappl i e d the gui de l i ne w he n the de f e nda nt p o ssessed th e fi rearm fo r p u rp o ses o th er th an sp o rt i n g u ses. M o reo v er, th ese c i r c ui t s ha ve r e

j e c t e d the appl i c a t i on of § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 2) w he n the de f e nda nt pos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m t o pa w n i t . I n r e a c hi ng thi s c onc l us i on, the s e c i r c ui t s ha ve10

de t e r m i ne d tha tthe pl a i n l a ngua ge of the gui de l i ne r e qui r e s tha tthe f i r e a rm be used sol el y f

or sport i ng pu rposes and n otfor any other purpo se . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S ol om on, 274 F . 3d 825, 828- 29 ( 4th C i r . 2001) ( di s c us s i ng the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the gui de l i ne ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l i nga n, 254 F . 3d 624, 626 ( 6th C i r . 2001) ( not i ng thatsol el y m ea ns si ng l y or a l on e a nd concl ud i ng thatgu i del i ne di d n otappl y w hen de f e nda nti nt e nde d t o s e l l f i r e a r m s t o r a i s e m one y t o m ove outof s t a t e a nd pa y f

or m o th e r ’s m e d ic a tio n s ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 7 6 F e d . A p p x . 5 4 ( 6 th C i r . 2003) ( unpubl i s he d) ( r e j e c t i ng appl i c a t i on of

the gui de l i ne w he n de f e nda nt pos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m t o pa w n i tf

orc a s h) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r e dm a n, 61 F e d. A ppx. 82 ( 4th C i r . 2003) ( unpubl i s he d) ( s a m e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N obl e , 264 F . 3d 1 1 4 2 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ) ( s a m e ) . W e a r e notpe r s ua de d by the r e a s oni ng gi ve n i n M oj i c a a nd M oi t . I ns t e a d, w e f ol l ow the F our th, F i f

th, a nd S i xth C i r c ui t s a nd hol d tha tthe pl a i n l a ngua ge of th e g u id e lin e r e n d e r s th e r e d u c tio n in ap p lic ab le u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t in C a l dw e l l ’ s c a s e . C a l dw e l l di d nota c tua l l y pos s e s s the f i r e a rm s ol e l y f

ors por t i ng pu rposes . M oreover, the courtm ade f ac tual and credi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s that C a ld w e ll’s r e a s o n f

o rp a w n in g th e g u n w a s u n c o n v in c in g g iv e n th a t C a ld w e ll never gave the paw n t i cketor the m on eyt o C harl es , no r di d h e m ake other a tt e m p t s t o h a v e th e g u n r e m o v e d f r o m th e h o u s e . B a s e d o n th e t e s t i m o n y , weIt is also no tewo rt hy that, although the c ourt did no t app ly thi s guide lin ere duc tio n, it did 7 grant a downward d ep arture , and the court stated that it believed thesentenc e it imposed was rea sonable in light of the circumstances a nd the § 3553(a) sentenc ing f actor s. 11 co n cl u d e th atth ese factual fi n d i n g s w ere n o tcl earl y erro n eo u s. A cco rd i n g l y, u n d er th e p l ai n l an g u ag e o f th e g u i d el i n e, w e h o l d th ata d efen d an tm u stp o ssess th e f i r e a r m s o l e l y f

o rs p o r t i n g p u rp o s e s t o q u a l i f y f o ra r e d u c t i o n u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 2 ). B y th is h o ld in g , w e d o n o t ad d re ss w h eth eran o th erp er so n ’s pos s e s s i on f

ors por t i ng purpos e s m a y be i m put e d on a nothe r . R a the r , w e c onc l ude tha tpa w ni ng a f

i r e a r m , w he the rornotthe f i r e a rm w a s ow ne d f

ors por t i ng pu rposes , do es no tm ee tthe pl ai n l angu age of the § 2 K 2. 1(b)(2). 7 A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.