# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 31 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Delv on n B at tl e

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 14

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 22 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Delv on n Bat tl e was co nv ic te d of b e i n g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

, in

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 12 0 m on th s 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.i mpri so nm en t. Bat tl e ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Fo r th e reas on s s e t

fo rth be lo w, we affi rm

.

I. Back gr ou nd

W e reco un t th e ev id e n c e i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.

Uni te d St at es v. St ev en s, 43 9 F.3 d 98 3, 9 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). On Ja nu ary 1 3, 20 12

,

two W at erl oo

, Io wa po li ce o ffi cers

, Mi ch ael Girs ch an d Sp en cer Gan n, were

co nd uc ti ng su rv ei ll an ce on an ap ar tm en t co m

plex whe re th ey su sp ect ed a su bjec t wit h

an ou ts ta nd in g warra nt was hi di ng

. The of fic ers sa w se ve ral in di vi du al s ge tt in g in to

a pa rk ed ve hi cl e be hi nd th e co m pl ex

. As th e ve hi cl e ex it ed th e co m pl ex

, th e of

fic ers

no ti ced it s rear li cen se pl at e was no t pr op erl y li t an d in it ia te d a tra ffi c st op

. The

of fic ers ob se rv ed th at th e ve hi cl e, whi ch was m ov in g 10 to 15 m il es pe r ho ur

, st op pe d

sl owl y , tak in g a pp ro xi m at el y 20 sec on ds to co m e to a co m pl et e st op

.

The re were th ree in di vi du al s in th e ve hi cl e: th e dr iv er, Ry an Mar sh al l; th e fro nt

se at pa ss en ge r, Bat tl e; an d a ba ck rig ht pa ss en ge r, Darre l Hard y

. The ir id en ti fic at io n

card s sh owe d th at al l th ree m en were fro m Des Mo in es

, Io wa. Offi cer Girs ch as ke d

Mar sh al l to ex it th e ve hi cl e so he co ul d sh ow hi m th e li gh ti ng pr ob le m

. Offi cer Gan n

ta lk ed to Bat tl e an d Hard y

, who bo th rem ai ne d in th e car

. The of fic ers no ti ced

in co ns is te nc ie s am on g th e th ree m en s’ acco un ts as to why th ey were in W at erl oo an d

wha t s to ps th ey

ha d m ad e d ur in g t he ir t rip

.

A th ird off

ic er, Offi cer Bo se , arri ve d o n t he sce ne wit h a dru g d et ect io n d og

.

Bas ed on th e ve hi cl e’s sl ow st op a n d t h e oc cu pa nt s’ in co ns is te nt acco un ts

, th e

o f f i c e r s be cam e su sp ic io us an d as ke d Bat tl e an d Hard y to ex it th e ve hi cl e so t h e y

co ul d co nd uc t a do g sn iff

. W he n Hard y ex it ed th e ve hi cl e, he fle d fro m th e sc en e.

Offi cer Gan n im m ed ia te ly pu rs ue d on fo ot an d Offi cer Girs ch fo ll owe d sh or tl y aft er,

le av in g Offi cer Bo se at t h e v eh ic le wit h Mar sh al l an d Bat tl e. Hard y ran ab ou t 35

y ard s be fo re be in g ap pr eh en de d. The pu rs ui ng of fic er s di d no t ob se rv e hi m

-2

-di sc ard in g an y th in g whi le he was ru nn in g an d di d no t fin d an y co nt rab an d whe n th ey

ret race d hi s st ep s in th e sn ow. The of fic ers arre st ed Hard y an d se arch ed th e ve hi cl e,

whe re th ey fo u n d a R u ge r 9- m il li m et er ha nd gu n th at co nt ai ne d a lo ad ed m ag azi ne

u n d er th e fro nt pa ss en ge r se at

. The gu n’s ba rrel was po in te d to ward th e ba ck se a t

.

Deb ris an d tu bi ng co nn ect ed to th e se at ’s el ect ric co nt ro ls bl oc ke d acce ss to th e gu n

fro m th e ba ck se at

. The of fic ers ph ot og rap he d th e gu n’s po si ti on be fo re rem ov in g

it

. The y arre st ed Mar sh al l an d Bat tl e a n d tra ns po rte d al l th ree m en to th e po li ce

st at io n.

Offi cer Gan n in te rv ie wed Bat tl e at th e po li ce st at io n. Duri ng th at in te rv ie w,

Bat tl e st at ed he di d no t ha ve fam il y in W at erl oo

, th ou gh he ha d sa id at th e sc en e th at

he di d. Bat tl e al so to ld Offi cer Gan n t he tri o ha d jus t arri ve d in Des Mo in es whe n

th ey were pu ll ed ov er an d ha d on ly m ad e on e st op

, in Dik e, Io wa. He di d no t ad m it

th ey ha d st op pe d at th e ap art m en t co m pl ex whe re of

fic ers fir st ob se rv ed th ei r ve hi cl e.

Bat tl e de ni ed po ss es si ng th e fir earm or kn owi ng it was in th e ve hi cl e. Po li ce in it ia ll y

su sp ect ed th e gu n ha d be e n p l a c e d by th e ba ck se at pa ss en ge r an d ch arg ed on ly

Mar sh al l an d Har dy with po ss es si on

.

Fu rth er in ve st ig at io n im pl ic at ed Bat tl e’s po ss es si on of th e gu n. The

ph ot og rap hs fro m th e sc en e sh owi ng th e gu n’s po si ti on un de r th e se at in di cat ed it ha d

be en pl aced th ere fro m th e fro nt

. The ph ot og rap hs al so le d of fic ers to be li ev e th e gu n

co ul d no t ha ve be en pu sh ed un de r th e fro nt se at fro m th e rear s e a t area be cau se of

ho w th e de br is was po si ti on ed an d be cau se th e tu bi n g un de r th e fro nt se at bl oc ke d

acce ss to th e ha nd gu n fro m th e rear

. Rec or di ng s of Hard y ’s p r i so n ph on e

co nv ers at io ns in cl ud ed di sc us si o ns wit h Mar sh al l ab ou t th e fir earm an d “ DV,” a

ni ck na m e Bat tl e us es

, an d wit h bo th Mar sh a l l an d Bat tl e ab ou t ho w Hard y wou ld

ha nd l e h i s c h a r ge s. W he n an in ve st ig at or in te rv ie wed Bat tl e on Ja nu ary 21

, 20 12

,

he de ni ed ta lk in g to Hard y on th e ph on e whi le he was in pr is on an d de ni ed us in g th e

ni ck na m e “ DV.” Sh or tl y aft er th e W at erl oo in ci de nt

, Hard y ag reed to te st ify ag ai ns t

Mar sh al l an d Bat tl e in ex ch a n g e f o r h i s ch arg es be in g dr op pe d. The st at e fil ed

-3

-ch arg es ag ai ns t Mar sh al l an d B a t t le fo r be in g fel on s in po ss es si on of a fir earm

.

Mar sh al l was co nv ic te d in st at e co ur t, bu t t h e s t a t e ch arg es ag ai ns t Bat tl e were

dr op pe d in fav or of fed eral ch ar g e s

. I n Decem be r 20 12

, in ve st ig at or s in te rv ie wed

a n ot he r m an

, Lon ni e W il li am s, who to ld th em th at Bat tl e, who he kn ew on ly a s

“ DV,” was th e sh oo te r in a Decem be r 4, 20 11 sh oo ti ng W il li am s wit ne ss ed in a Des

Mo in e s g a s s t at io n pa rk in g lo t. In Ja nu ary 20 13

, W at erl oo po li ce rece iv ed a la b

rep or t m at ch in g th e W at erl oo fir earm to cas in gs fro m th e 20 11 Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng

.

Bat tl e was fed eral ly charg ed wit h b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s pr e-t ria l m ot io n to ad m it ev id en ce

co nc ern in g th e Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng at Bat tl e’s tri al

, ho ld in g it was a d miss ib le as

di rect ev id en ce pr ob at iv e of th e cri m e ch arg ed an d th us no t su bjec t to th e an al y si s fo r

ad m is si bi li ty of ch arac te r ev id en ce un de r Fe d e r a l Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b)

. The

go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ba ll is ti cs ev id en ce m at ch in g th e cas in gs fro m th e sh oo ti ng to

th e gu n fo un d in th e ve hi cl e in W at erl oo

. Bo th pa rti es p r es en te d ey ewit ne ss

te st im on y fro m th e sh oo ti ng

. W it ne ss es te st ifi ed th at th e ga s st at io n pa rk in g lo t was

ve ry cro wde d whe n th e sh oo ti ng oc cu rred

. Lon ni e W il li ams

, a lo ng -ti m e

acq ua in ta nc e o f Bat tl e’s who fir st id en ti fie d hi m as th e sh oo te r, was dr iv in g t he car

in whi ch th e vi ct im was rid in g. He ob se rv ed th e sh oo ti ng fro m 8 to 10 feet away an d

te st ifi ed he was 10 0 pe rcen t su re th at Bat tl e, or “ DV,” was th e sh oo te r. An of f-d ut y

po li ce of fic er, Ro ge r St il es

, was wor ki ng se cu rit y at th e ga s st at io n on th e ni gh t of th e

sh oo ti ng an d ob se rv ed th e sh oo te r fro m 20 to 25 feet away. He co ul d no t id en ti fy hi m

bu t de sc rib ed hi m as 5'1 0" to 6 feet ta ll wit h a sl en de r bu il d. Sev er a l wit ne ss es

te st ifi ed th at Hard y

, who is 5'1 0" an d weig he d at le as t 23 0 po un ds

, ha s a co ns id erab ly

he av ie r bu il d th an Bat tl e

, w h o is 5'1 0" an d weig he d ap pr ox im at el y 16 5 po un ds

.

Offi cer St il es te st ifi ed th at he wou ld no t co ns id er so m eo ne who is 5'1 0" an d 23 0- pl us

po un d s t o b e “ sl en de r.” A th ird ey ewit ne ss

, Cal vi n Bri gg s, a fri en d of Bat tl e’s,

te st ifi ed he di d no t act ua ll y se e th e sh oo te r b u t a l s o d i d no t se e Bat tl e at th e ga s

st at io n th at ni gh t. A fo ur th ey ewit ne ss

, Ant ho ny Bl is se tt

, a rel at iv e of bo th Bat tl e an d

Hard y

, te st ifi ed he pu ll ed in to th e ga s st at io n, sa w t h e s h oo ti ng fro m th ree to fo ur

-4

-ya r d s a w a y

, an d im m ed ia te ly le ft th e st at io n. He id en ti fie d Hard y as th e sh oo te r

.

Bl is se tt te st ifi ed th at th e fir st ti me h e i d e nt ifi ed Hard y as th e sh oo te r was whe n an

in ve st ig at or co nt act ed hi m a da y or t wo b efo re Ba tt le ’s tri al st art ed

.

The co ur t al so co ns id ered an d de ni ed se ve ral m ot io ns Bat tl e m ad e du rin g tri al

.

On th e fir st da y of tri al

, Bat tl e mad e an or al m ot io n to ad m it ev id en ce of Hard y ’s

pr io r co nv ic ti on s an d ot he r cri m in al act s. The go ve rn m en t li st ed Hard y as a po te nt ia l

wit ne ss , s o bo th pa rti es pr es en te d arg um en ts ab ou t ad m is si on of t he co nv ic ti on s as

im pe ach m en t evi de nc e un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 60 9. Bat tl e al so arg ue d th e

ev id en ce was ad m is si bl e as “ rev ers e 40 4( b) ” ev id en ce. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b)

. He

arg ue d t he ev id en ce t en de d t o e st ab li sh th at Hard y ha bi tu al ly car rie s gu ns an d ru ns

fro m po li ce whe n co nf

ro nt ed

, whi ch

, Bat tl e arg ue d, co ul d ha ve le d th e jury t o fin d

Ha r d y was in so le po ss es si on of th e fir earm

. Bat tl e su bm it te d a br ie f de ta il in g th e

ev id en ce on th e se co nd m or ni ng of tri al

, whi ch th e co ur t en te red in to th e reco rd bu t

di d no t co ns id er be cau se of it s la te su bm is si on

. The co ur t he ard arg um en ts fro m bo th

si de s an d ru le d th at th e bu lk of th e ev id en ce was in ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. In

ad di ti on

, th e co ur t refu se d Bat tl e’s req ue st to gr an t jud ic ia l im m un it y to Mar sh al l to

te st i f y a b o u t co nt rab an d he cl ai m ed he fo un d whe n ret raci ng Hard y ’s f oo ts te ps th e

da y aft er t he arre st . Fin al ly, th e co ur t d en ie d B at tl e’s m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al

.

Afte r a t wo- da y

tri al , th e jury con vi ct ed Bat tl e o f be in g a fel on in po ss es si on

of a fir earm

. The Pres en te nc e Rep or t (PSR ) pl aced Bat tl e in cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y

VI ba se d on hi s cri m in al hi st or y sc or e of 17

. The PSR reco m m en de d a to ta l of

fen se

le ve l of 29 ba se d on th e ch arg ed of fen se an d a fin di ng th at Bat tl e co m m it te d th e Des

Mo in es sh oo ti ng an d cau se d se rio us bo di ly in jury to th a t vi ct im

. The Gui de li ne s

es ta bl is he d an im

pr is on m en t ran ge of 15 1 to 18 8 m on th s, an d th e PSR reco m m en de d

th e 12 0- m on th st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce, pu rs ua nt to se ct i on 5G1 .1(a ) of th e

Un i t e d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (USSG). The co ur t fo un d th at Bat tl e’s ba se

of fen se le ve l was 20 an d a p pl ie d a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r us e of a fir earm in

co nn ect io n wit h th e Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng , f or a t o t a l b a se of

fen se le ve l of 24

. See

-5

-Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g C om m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. The

Gui de li ne s im

pr is on m en t ran ge fo r of

fen se le ve l 24 wit h cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y VI

is 10 0 to 12 5 m on th s. Afte r co ns id eri ng rel ev an t s en te nc in g fa ct or s p ur su an t t o 1 8

U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bat tl e to th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 12 0

m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Bat tl e no w ap pe al s th e ad m is si on of th e Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng e vi de nc e,

ex cl us io n of Hard y ’s pr io r ba d act s ev id en c e

, de ni al of jud ic ia l im m un it y fo r

Mar sh al l, de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al

, ap pl ic a t i o n of th e se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en t, an d t he reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e.

II. Adm is si on of De s M oi ne s Sh oo ti ng Evi de nc e

Bat tl e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of th e Des Mo in es

sh oo ti ng be cau se it was t o o r e mote to be co ns id ered di rect ev id en ce an d th us was

e v i de nc e of cri m es

, wro ng s, or ot he r act s, im pr op erl y of

fere d to su gg es t hi s

pr op en si ty to co m

m it th e ch arg ed cri m e. See Fe d. R. Ev id . 4 04 (b ). He al so arg ue s

th e p r o b a t i v e va lu e of th e ev id en ce was su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of

un fai r pr ejud ic e to hi s de fen se

. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3. W e rev ie w a di st ric t cou rt’s

e v id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bran do n, 52 1 F

. 3 d

10 19 , 10 25 -2 6 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

W he n “ ev id en ce of ot he r cri m es

. . . te nd s lo gi cal ly to pr ov e an y el em en t of th e

cri m e ch arg ed

. . . it is ad m is si bl e as an in te gr al pa rt of th e im m ed ia te co nt ex t of th e

cri m e ch arg ed

. . . [an d] is no t ex tri ns ic an d th eref o r e is no t go ve rn ed by Ru le

40 4( b) .” Uni te d St at es v. Bas s, 79 4 F.2 d 13 05

, 1 3 1 2 ( 8t h Ci r. 19 86 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. To co nv ic t Bat tl e un de r 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 2( g) (1 ), th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at : (1 ) Bat tl e

ha d pr ev io us ly b e e n c on vi ct ed of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of im pr is on m en t

ex ceed in g on e y ear; (2 ) Bat tl e kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm ; an d (3 ) th e fir earm ha d

-6

-be en in or affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 39 3 F.3 d 84 2, 84 6

(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The pa rti es st ip ul at ed t o th e fir st an d th ird el em en ts

, so th e

go ve rn m en t o nl y

ha d t o p ro ve th at Bat tl e k no win gl y po ss es se d t he fir earm

.

The go ve rn men t can pr ov e kn owi ng po ss es si on by sh owi ng act ua l or

co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on

, an d po ss es si on can be so le or joi nt

. Id

. at 84 6- 47

.

Co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on “ ‘is es ta bl is he d if th e pe rs on ha s do m in io n ov er th e pr em is es

w h e r e t he fir earm is lo cat ed

, or co nt ro l, own ers hi p, or do m in io n ov er th e fir e a r m

it se lf.’” Id

. at 84 7 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bo y ki n, 9 8 6 F.2 d 27 0, 27 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 93 )). “ Mer e p h ys i c a l p ro xi m it y to a fir earm is no t en ou gh to sh ow co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on

, bu t k no wled ge of [a fir earm ’s] pr es en ce, co m bi ne d wit h co nt ro l is

co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on .” Uni te d St at es v. Man n, 70 1 F.3 d 27 4, 30 4- 05 ( 8 t h Ci r.

20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 47 0 (2 01 3)

. As “ a

jury rare ly ha s di rect ev id en ce of a defe nd an t’s k no wled ge of a fir earm ’s pr es en ce .

. . kn ow l e d g e is ge ne ral ly es ta bl is he d th ro ug h ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Id . a t 30 5

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Pri or po ss es si on of a fir earm is di rect ly rel ev an t

to pr ov in g la te r po ss es si on of th at sa m e weap on be cau se it he lp s es ta bl is h own ers hi p

or co nt ro l of th e weap on

. Uni te d St at es v. Ada m s, 60 4 F.3 d 59 6, 59 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 );

Uni te d St at es v. Ro ck

, 28 2 F.3 d 54 8, 55 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Lim it ed ev id en ce of a pr io r

cri m e co m

m it te d by th e de fen da nt wit h th e sa m e fir earm m ay be ad m it te d in a fel on

in -p os se ss io n cas e be cau se it is hi gh ly pr ob at iv e of th e de fen da nt ’s po ss es si on of th at

weap on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Fle no id , 41 5 F .3d 97 4, 9 76 -7 7 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

The fir earm po li ce fo un d in th e ve hi cl e in W at erl oo was th e s a me ha nd gu n

us ed in th e pr io r Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng

. As th ere were th ree in di vi du al s in th e ve hi cl e

in whi ch th e ha nd gu n was fo un d an d no on e was in act ua l po ss es si on of th e fir earm

,

th e go ve rn m en t ha d to pr ov e co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on

. Evi de nc e th at Bat tl e us ed th e

fir earm pr ev io us ly is h i g h l y pr ob at iv e of hi s own ers hi p or su bs eq ue nt co nt ro l ov er

it

, whi ch su pp or ts a fin di ng of co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on

. See Ada m s, 60 4 F.3 d at 59 9;

Fl en oi d, 41 5 F.3 d at 97 7. Si nc e t h i s e v i de nc e “ ‘ten d[ ed ] lo gi cal ly to pr ov e [an ]

-7

-el em en t of th e cri m e ch arg ed ,’ ” it was di rect ev id en ce an d was no t su bjec t to Ru le

40 4( b)

. Ada m s, 60 4 F.3 d at 59 9 (q uo ti ng Mo or e v. Uni te d St at es

, 17 8 F.3 d 99 4, 10 00

(8 th Cir . 19 99 )).

Bat tl e al so arg ue s th e ev id en ce was un du ly p r ejud ic ia l be cau se it crea te d a

“ tri al wit hi n a tri al ,” di ve rti ng si gn ifi can t ti m e an d at te nt io n to pr ov in g he co m m it te d

an un ch arg ed cri m e. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3. W e di sa gr ee. Evi de nc e de m on st rat in g

Bat tl e pr ev io us ly p o s s e s s ed th e fir earm was di rect ly rel ev an t to th e cri m e ch arg ed

.

The go ve rn m en t to ld th e jury th at Bat tl e was no t be in g pr os ecu te d fo r th e sh oo ti ng

an d th at th e Des Mo in es ev id en ce was to b e u s e d o nl y in de te rm in in g whe th er he

kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm in W at erl oo

. The te st im on y el ic it ed fo cu se d on th e

id en ti ty of th e sh oo te r an d th e ha nd gu n, no t on th e in jury to th e vi ct im or ot he r fact s

su rro un di ng th at cri m e. The co ur t al so is su ed a li m it in g in st ru ct io n to th e jury on us e

of th e ev id en ce, whi ch “ ‘dim in is he s th e da ng er of an y un fai r pr ejud ic e.’” Ro ck

, 28 2

F.3 d at 55 1 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fran kl in , 2 50 F

. 3 d 65 3, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )).

The co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th is ev id en ce.

III. Exc lu si on of “ Rev ers e 4 04 (b )” Ev id en ce

Bat tl e cl ai m s th e d i s t r ic t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of Hard y ’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on s an d ot he r ba d act s, w h ic h he so ug ht to in tro du ce to su gg es t Hard y was

in so le po ss es si on of th e fir earm

. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t ’s r u l i n g ex cl ud in g

ev id en ce fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Cl ark v. Mar ti ne z, 29 5 F.3 d 80 9, 81 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ). “ Abs en t an ab us e of di sc ret io n, th is Co ur t wil l no t su bs ti tu te it s jud gm en t fo r

th e ju d g m en t of th e di st ric t co ur t.” Id

. Bat tl e ch al le ng es th e ex cl us io n of th is

ev id en ce as “ rev ers e 40 4( b) ” ev id en ce. Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) go ve rn s

ad m is si on of e vi de nc e o f pr ev io us cri m es , wron gs , or o th er ac ts

. Evi de nc e of pr io r

ba d act s m ay no t be in tro du ced to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s ch arac te r or pr op en si ty to co m m it

a cri m e bu t m ay b e ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r pu rp os e, su ch as pr ov in g kn owl ed ge or

in te nt

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (2 ). Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce is typic al ly in tro du ced by th e

-8

-pr os ecu ti on to he lp pr ov e th e de fen da nt gu il ty of th e ch arg ed c r i me. “ Rev ers e

40 4( b) ” is a te rm so m e co ur ts ha ve us ed to refe r to ev id en ce of pr io r b a d act s by a

th ird pa rty, in tro du ced by th e de fen da nt an d of fere d to im

pl ic at e th e th ird pa rty in th e

ch arg ed cri m e. 2

Bat tl e so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce of a num be r of pr io r co nv ic ti on s, di sm is se d

ch arg es

, an d fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces un de rlyin g th es e pr io r ba d act s, ex te nd in g ba ck

m or e th an 15 y ears to in cl u d e i n c i d e n t s th at oc cu rred whe n Hard y was a juv en il e.

The ta bl e of ev id en ce Bat tl e pr of fere d in cl ud ed m or e th an 20 ch arg es be twee n 19 96

a n d 2 0 1 2. The co nv ic ti on s in cl ud ed as sa ul t wit h a weap on

, m ul ti pl e co un ts of

po ss es si on of co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

, bu rg la ry

, th eft

, an d a 20 00 co nv ic ti on fo r be in g

a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir e a r m. Th e di sm is se d ch arg es an d un de rlyin g fact s

in cl ud ed in st an ces whe re Hard y ran fro m po li ce or ha d a fir earm whe n he was

ap pr eh en de d. W hi le Bat tl e ack no wled ge d th at th is ev id en ce “ st art s to so un d li ke

pr op en si ty,” h e c l a i med he so ug ht to in tro du ce it fo r no n- pr op en si ty pu rp os es

. He

arg ue d he wou ld us e th e un de rlyin g fact s fro m th es e ch arg es to es ta bl is h ho w Hard y ’s

lo ng an d ad ve rs ari al rel at io ns hi p wit h la w en fo rcem en t ha d de ve lo pe d in to a m od us

op eran di of carr y in g gu ns an d ru nn in g fro m po li ce whe n co nf ro nt ed

. He cl ai m ed th is

co ul d le ad th e jury t o be li ev e Hard y was in so le po ss es si on of th e fir earm

. He al so

arg ue d th e ev id en ce wou ld te nd to pr ov e Hard y ’s kn owl ed ge th at th e fir earm was in

th e car, in te nt to po ss es s th e weap on

, an d fam il ia rit y w i t h h a n d l i ng an d op erat in g

ha nd gu ns

.

See Uni te d St at es v. Myers, 58 9 F.3 d 11 7, 12 3 (4 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Uni te d St at es 2

v. Mo nt el on go

, 42 0 F.3 d 11 69

, 11 74 (1 0t h C i r

. 2 0 05 ); Uni te d St at es v. Seal s, 41 9

F.3 d 60 0, 60 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Un i t e d S t a te s v. Luc as

, 35 7 F.3 d 59 9, 60 5 (6 th Ci r.

20 04 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ham il to n, 48 F.3 d 14 9, 15 5 n. 8 (5 th Ci r. 19 95 ); Uni te d St at es

v. Sp en cer, 1 F.3 d 74 2, 75 0 n.5 (9 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (Rei nh ard t, J., di ss e n t i n g ) ; U n it ed

St at es v. St ev en s, 9 35 F.2d 13 80 , 14 01 -0 2 (3 d C ir. 1 99 1)

.

-9

-If th e pa rty in tro du ci ng 40 4( b) ev id en ce de m on st ra t e s a no n- pr op en si ty

pu rp os e fo r th e ev id en ce, it is ad m is si bl e if it is : “ (1 ) rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e;

(2 ) si m il ar in ki nd an d cl os e in ti m e to th e cri m e ch arg ed ; (3 ) pr ov en by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce; an d (4 ) if th e p o t e n ti al pr ejud ic e do es no t

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e va lu e.” Uni te d St at es v. Tho m as

, 39 8 F.3 d 10 58

,

10 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ The req ui rem en t to ba la nc e pr ob at iv e va lu e an d pr ejud ic e is

fo un d in Ru le 40 3.” Uni te d St at es v. Co ok

, 45 4 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Und er

Ru le 40 3, “[t ]h e c o u r t m ay ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou tw ei gh ed by a da ng er of on e or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng : un fai r

pr ejud ic e, co nf

us in g th e is s u e s

, m is le ad in g th e jury, un du e de la y

, was ti ng ti m e, or

ne ed le ss ly pr es en ti ng cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 4 0 3

. We h a ve no t ha d

oc cas io n to ru le on th e ad m is si bi li ty of rev ers e 40 4( b) ev id en ce. Bat tl e su gg es ts we

sh ou ld co ns id er th e us ua l 40 4( b) fact or s, bu t wit h le ss co nc ern fo r pr ejud ic e be cau se

ev id en c e o f

f e r ed ag ai ns t so m eo ne ot he r th an th e de fen da nt do es no t rai se a ris k of

pr ejud ic in g th e jury ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt

. He no te s th e di st ric t co ur t m us t st il l weig h

ot he r Ru le 40 3 co ns id erat io ns

, su ch as whe th er th e ev id en ce wil l m is le ad th e jury or

was te ti m e. Ass um in g wi th ou t d eci di ng th at Bat tl e’s su gg es te d m et ho d of an al y si s

is co rrec t, we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th is

ev id en ce.

Bat tl e ad va nc ed two pr im ary th eo rie s fo r t h e e vi de nc e’s no n- pr op en si ty

pu rp os e: (1 ) m od us op eran di an d (2 ) kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t. The di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered each of Hard y ’s pr io r co nv ic t io ns an d fo un d th at ne it he r th eo ry

de m on st rat ed ho w t he ev id en ce was r e l e v an t to an y m at eri al is su e at tri al

. Bat tl e’s

m ot io n an d ap pe al fo cu s on ad m it ti ng th is ev id en ce to sh ow Hard y ’s m od us op eran di

of carr y in g gu ns an d ru nn in g fro m po li ce. The ge ne ric n a t u r e o f th is th eo ry is

in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e m od us op eran di

. See Uni te d St at es v. Carr ol l, 20 7 F.3 d 46 5, 46 8

(8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). A vi ab le m od us op eran di th eo ry m us t sh ow a pa tt ern of be ha vi or th at

is “ su ffi ci en tl y id io syn c r a t ic ” to m ak e th e act s “ cl earl y di st in ct iv e” fro m ot he r

in st an ces of th e sa m e cri m in al be ha vi or

. Id

. Abs en t th is di st in ct iv en es s, “ ev id en ce

-1 0-of th e pr io r cri m e is ‘not hi ng mo r e th an th e ch arac te r ev id en ce th at Ru le 40 4( b)

pr oh ib it s.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 10 3 F.3 d 60 0, 60 3 (7t h Ci r. 19 96 )).

A hi st or y of ru nn in g fro m po li ce whe n co nf ro nt ed

, so m et i mes w h i l e carr y in g a

weap on

, do es no t m eet th is hi gh ba r. And th e di st ric t co ur t n o te d th at ev en if th is

co ul d est ab li sh a m od us op eran di

, it wou ld no t be rel ev an t to pr ov in g or dis pr ov in g

Bat tl e’s kn owi ng po ss es si on of t he fir earm

.

On kn owl ed ge an d in te nt

, th e co ur t fo un d th e bu lk of th e co n v i c t i o n s an d

un de rlyin g fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces were al so irr el ev an t to an y is su e at tri al

. It no te d

th at Hard y ’s fel on -in -p os se ss io n co nv ic ti o n may ha ve be en ad m is si bl e if he ha d

te st ifi ed he ha d ne v e r o w n e d a ha nd gu n or was no t fam il ia r wit h ha nd li ng or

op erat in g fir earm s, bu t it was oth erwi se no t clea rly rel ev an t beca us e hi s kn owl ed ge

an d fam il ia rit y wit h ha nd gu ns was no t at is su e. As th e go ve rn m en t ag reed th at Hard y

kn ew th e g un was i n t he car an d i nt en de d t o jo in tl y po ss es s i t wit h B at tl e, th e co ur t

was co rrec t in de te rm in in g th at ev id en ce of Hard y ’s pa st po ss es si on of weap on s was

no t rele va nt to th e is su e of Bat tl e’s kn owi ng po ss es si on of th is fir earm

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Turn er, 58 3 F.3 d 10 62

, 10 66 (8 th C i r

. 20 09 ) (p rio r ba d act ev id en ce

reg ard in g kn owl ed ge an d in te nt is r e le va nt an d ad m is si bl e whe n st at e of m in d is at

is su e); Uni te d St at es v. St ro ng

, 41 5 F.3 d 90 2, 90 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (a pa rty’s

kn owl ed ge an d in te nt are m at eri al is su es whe re he as se rts he was m erel y pr es en t an d

di d n ot kn ow ab ou t t he fir earm ).

The co ur t th en co ns id ered th e ris k of di st ract io n an d was te of ti m e ari si ng fro m

th e pr es en ta ti on of th is ev id en ce an d de ci de d it su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed an y m in im al

pr ob at iv e va lu e th e ev id en ce m ay ha ve of fere d. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3. W e gi ve gr eat

de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s Ru le 40 3 de te rm in at io ns

. Uni te d St at es v. Halk

, 63 4

F.3 d 48 2, 48 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Bat tl e so ug ht ad m is si on of a p a c k a g e o f 40 4( b)

ev id en ce, whi ch he in di cat ed he wou ld ha ve in tro du ced by el ic it in g te st im on y fro m

Hard y on de ta il ed fact pa tt ern s s u r ro un di ng a va rie ty of co nv ic ti on s an d di sm is se d

ch arg es an d th en “ refr es h[ in g] hi s re c o l l e ct io n” wit h po li ce rep or ts whe re ne ed ed

.

-1 1-Th e c o u rt no te d th is rai se d ev id en ti ary co nc ern s, as Bat tl e di d no t po in t to ot h e r

ev id en ce he co ul d in tro du ce, and us e of po li ce repo rts to pr ov e th e fact s un de rlyin g

an arre st can pr es e n t di ffi cu lt he ars ay an d rel ia bi li ty i ss ue s. See Co ok , 4 54 F.3 d at

94 2; Uni te d S ta te s v . Bel l, 7 85 F.2d 64 0, 6 44 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6) . The co ur t sta te d th is

wou ld be a “ co ns id erab le un de rta ki ng ” an d th at it wou ld no t “ ret ry or try Mr. Hard y

fo r eac h o f th es e o ffen se s in th e m id dl e o f tr ia l” be cau se it wou ld “ pr ol on g t he tri al

un ne ces sa ril y

, an d wou ld n’t le ad to an y ev id en ce th at wou ld be pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t

to th e is su e o f w h e t h e r Mr. Bat tl e kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm on th e da y in

qu es t i o n

. ” Ev e n gr an ti ng th at ad m is si on of th is ev id en ce wou ld no t po se th e sa m e

ris k of pr e

ju di ce to de fen da nt ’s c ha ract er as reg ul ar 40 4( b) ev id en ce, th e co ur t st il l

ha d di sc ret io n to ex cl ud e it ba se d on it s Ru le 40 3 weig hi ng

. See Cl ark v. Mar ti ne z,

29 5 F.3 d 80 9, 81 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ev id en ce th at wou ld ot he rwis e be ad mi s s i b le

un de r Ru le 40 4( b) st il l ha s to m eet th e req ui rem en ts of Ru le 40 3)

. As Bat tl e fo cu se d

on in tro du ci ng th e en ti re pa ck ag e of 40 4( b) ev id en c e

, t h e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in ex am in in g t h e e v id en ce as a who le an d de te rm in in g th at an y m in im al

pr ob at iv e va lu e it m a y ha ve po ss es se d was ou twei gh ed by t he ris k of di st ract io n in

co nd uc ti ng m in i tri al s on th e de ta il ed fact s un de rlyin g th e lo n g st rin g of of fen se s

Bat tl e so ug ht to in tro du ce. See Co ok

, 45 4 F.3 d at 94 1- 42

. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces

, we

fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th is ev id en ce an d

“ ‘focu si ng th e tri al on th e of fen se at is su e.’” Id

. a t 9 4 2 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Perk in s, 9 37 F.2d 13 97 , 14 01 (9t h C ir. 1 99 1) ).

IV. Ju di ci al Im

m un it y

Bat tl e arg ue s t he di st ric t co ur t er red in refu si ng to gra nt jud ic ia l i m m un it y to

Mar sh al l so he co ul d te st ify ab ou t dr ug s an d a fir earm m ag azi ne he sa id he reco ve red

whe n he ret race d Hard y ’s st ep s t h e d a y aft er th ei r arre st

. “ Ju di ci al im m un it y is a

co nc ep t th at co m es fro m cas e la w ho ld in g th at a co ur t ha s in he ren t au th or it y to gr an t

us e im m un it y to wit ne ss es

, in th e ab se nc e of a go ve rn m en t req ue st

, to se cu re es se nt ia l

ex cu lp at or y te st im on y .” Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Cam pb el l, 41 0 F.3 d 45 6, 46 4 (8 th Ci r.

-1 2-20 05 ). The re is no cl ear st an da rd of rev ie w fo r a de ni al of jud ic ia l im m un it y be cau se

th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it ha s n o t r eco gn iz ed th e co nc ep t of jud ic ia l im m un it y

. See id .;

Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 31 8 F.3 d 84 5, 85 6 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ). Thu s we fin d no

erro r in th e co ur t’s refu sa l to gr an t jud ic ia l im m un it y to Mar sh al l. W as hi ng to n, 31 8

F.3 d a t 8 56

.

V. Mot io n fo r Acq ui tt al

Bat tl e co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to gr an t hi s m ot io n fo r

acq ui t t a l b a se d on in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r

jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al de no vo , eva lu at in g “ th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le

to th e go ve rn m en t an d dr aw[i ng ] al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in it s fav or .” Uni te d St at es

v. Serr an o- Lop ez, 36 6 F.3 d 62 8, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )

. “‘We r e ve rs e on ly if no

reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.’”

Id . (qu ot in g Un it ed Sta te s v . Fran k, 3 54 F.3d 91 0, 9 16 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

As no te d pr ev io us ly, th e go ve rn m en t on ly ha d to pr ov e Ba t t l e k n owi ng ly

po ss es se d th e fir earm

. It co ul d do so by sh owi ng “ he ha d act ua l or co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on of th e fir earm

, an d po ss es si on of th e fir earm co ul d ha ve b e e n s ol e or

joi nt .” W al ke r, 39 3 F.3 d at 84 6- 47

. C o n s t r uc ti ve po ss es si on can be pr ov ed by

sh owi ng “ ‘con tro l, own ers hi p, or do m in io n ov er the fir earm it se lf’” or th e pr em is es

whe re it is fo un d. Id

. at 84 7 (q uo ti ng Bo y ki n, 98 6 F.2 d at 27 4)

. A de fen da nt ’s pr io r

us e of a fir earm is pr ob at iv e of hi s own ers hi p an d co nt ro l of th at wea p o n a n d th us

pr ob at iv e of hi s la te r po ss es si on

. Fl en oi d, 41 5 F.3 d at 97 7. Ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce,

su ch as th e lo cat io n of th e fir earm whe n it is fo un d or th e de fen da n t ’s d e c e i t f u l

be ha vi or du rin g qu es ti on in g, is al so pr ob at iv e of po ss e s s i on

. Uni te d St at es v.

Brad le y , 47 3 F .3d 86 6, 8 68 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; Walk er, 3 93 F.3d at 8 47

.

The go ve rn m en t’s evi de nc e of th e po si ti on of th e fi rear m when it was fo un d,

Bat tl e’s pr ev io us po ss es si on of t h e f i r e arm

, an d hi s di sh on es ty wit h of fic ers was

-1 3-su ffi ci en t pr oo f fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d be yo n d a r e as on ab le do ub t th at Bat tl e

kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm in W a t e r l o o

. The fir earm was fo un d di rect ly

un de rn eat h Bat tl e’s se at

. See Wa l k e r

, 3 9 3 F.3 d at 84 7 (lo cat io n of fir earm un de r

de fen da nt ’s se at was ev id en ce of hi s po ss es si on ). Po li ce te st ifi ed th e gu n’s po si ti on

un de r th e fro nt se at was co ns is te nt wit h pl acement fro m th e fro nt an d it wou ld ha ve

be en di ffi cu lt or im

po ss ib le fo r so m eo ne to pl ace it un de r th e se at fro m th e rear

. The

ph ot og rap hs sh owe d th at de br is on th e flo or of th e ba ck se at an d tu bi ng un de rn eat h

th e fro nt se at wou ld ha ve ob st ru ct ed Hard y ’s acce ss to th e fir earm fro m th e ba ck se at

.

The Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng ev id en ce in di cat ed Bat tl e’s pr io r own ers hi p or co nt ro l ov er

th e fi rear m

, whi ch su pp or te d a fin di ng th at he po ss es se d t ha t s am e fi rear m jus t fi ve

week s la te r. See Ada m s

, 6 0 4 F

. 3d at 59 9; Fl en oi d, 41 5 F.3 d at 97 7. W hi le Bat tl e

co nt es ts th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es id en ti fy in g hi m as th e sh oo te r, “ [t]he jury ha s

th e s o l e r es po ns ib il it y to res ol ve co nf li ct s or co nt rad ic ti on s in te st im on y

, an d

cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are res ol ve d in fav o r o f th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v.

W ie st

, 5 96 F.3 d 90 6, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In ve st ig at or s te st ifi ed th at Bat tl e li ed to

th em on m

ul ti pl e oc cas io ns

, gi vi ng in co ns is te nt acco un ts du rin g th e W at erl o o

in ci de nt an d de nyin g he was in vo lv ed in jail ph on e co nv ers at io ns wit h Hard y an d th at

he us e d t h e n i ck na m e “ DV.” The jury co ul d reas on ab ly fin d Bat tl e’s di sh on es ty

in cri m in at in g. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch at m on

, 74 2 F.3 d 35 0, 35 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (jury

co ul d in fer th at lying i n d i c a te d co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t); W al ke r, 39 3 F.3 d at 84 7

(lyin g su pp or te d kn owi ng po ss es si on of a fir earm ). Take n tog et he r, th is ev id en ce was

su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t t h a t Bat tl e

kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed th e fi rear m

.

VI. Sen te nc in g En ha nc em en t

Bat tl e ch al le ng es th e co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a f o ur -le ve l se nt en ci ng

en ha nc e men t f

o r u s e of a fir earm in th e Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng

. A de fen da nt ’s ba se

of fen se le ve l is in crea s e d by fo ur le ve ls if th e de fen da nt “ us ed or po ss es se d an y

fir earm or am m

un it io n i n c o n n ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se .” USSG

-1 4-§ 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. The co ur t ap p l i e d t h e en ha nc em en t aft er fin di ng by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at Ba t t l e co m m it te d th e Des Mo in es sh oo ti ng

.

Bat tl e cl ai m s th e co ur t erre d in m ak in g th is fin di ng it se lf rat he r th an su bm it ti ng it to

th e jury. He arg ue s th at Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t req ui res th at fact s whi ch in crea se

th e pe na lt y fo r a cri m e sh ou ld be su bm it te d to a jury an d fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t. S e e A l l e yn e v. Uni te d St at es

, 13 3 S. Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3) ; App ren di v. New

Je rs ey

, 53 0 U.S. 46 6 (2 00 0)

. He al so arg ue s th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e ‘leg al 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 an en ha nc em en t fo r pu rp os e s of cal cu la ti ng an ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge

. . .

w h il e th e fact ua l fin di ng s un de rp in ni ng th e en ha nc em en t are rev ie wed fo r c l e a r

erro r.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . But le r, 59 4 F .3d 95 5, 9 65 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot in g Un it ed

St at es v. Sep to n, 55 7 F.3 d 93 4, 93 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). In App ren di

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

he ld th at “ [o ]the r th an th e fact of a pr io r co nv ic ti o n

, a n y f act th at in crea se s th e

pe na lt y for a cri m e b ey on d t he pre sc rib ed st at ut or y m ax im um m us t b e su bm it te d t o

a ju r y

, an d pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” 53 0 U.S. at 49 0. In All ey ne

, t h e

Co ur t ex te nd ed App ren di to ho ld th at fact s whi ch in crea se a de fen da nt ’s m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce m

us t al so be su bm it te d to th e jury. 13 3 S. Ct

. at 21 55

.

“Re g a r di ng whe th er a jury is req ui red

, ap pl ic at io n of a st at ut or y m ax im um o r

m in im um are to be di st in gu is he d from ‘factfi nd in g us ed to gu id e jud ic ia l di sc ret io n

in sel ect in g a pu ni sh m en t wi th in li m it s fi xe d b y law.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi s, 7 53

F.3 d 13 61

, 13 61 -6 2 (8 th Ci r.) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng All ey ne

, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 21 61 n.2 ),

c ert

. de ni ed

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 39 3 (2 01 4)

. In ap pl y in g th e se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B )

en ha nc em en t, th e co ur t n e i t h er ex ceed ed th e st at ut or y m ax im um no r in crea se d a

st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um

. See 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ) ( n o s t a tu to ry m an da to ry

m in im um fo r po ss es si on of fir earm as a fel on ). Thu s th e c o u r t d i d n ot err in

co nd uc ti ng it s own fact -fi nd in g fo r th e pu rp os es of ap pl y in g the en ha nc em en t. Dav is

,

75 3 F .3d at 1 36 2.

-1 5-T he sect io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s if a fi re ar m fa ci lit at ed an oth er

fel on y of

fen se

, whi ch th e Gui de li ne s de fi n e a s a n of fen se “ pu ni sh ab le by

im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, reg ard le ss of whe th er a cri m in al ch arg e

was br ou gh t, o r a co nv ic ti on ob ta in ed .” USSG § 2K2 .1, co m m en t. (n . 1 4( A), (C))

.

If th e co ur t “ pr op erl y tre at [s ] th e Gui de li ne s ran ge as ad vi so ry

, [it is ] free to co ns id er

an y se nt en ci ng fact s su pp or te d in t he reco rd by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce in

se tt in g [a] s e n t e n c e , s ub

ject on ly t o th e st at ut or y m ax im um an d th e gu id in g fact or s

in § 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at e s v

. Wa d e, 43 5 F.3 d 82 9, 83 1- 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er

cu ria m ). W e gi ve gr eat de fere nc e to th e co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s in su pp or t of a

se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. B r o w n

, 53 9 F.3 d 83 5, 83 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The di st ric t

co ur t fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at Bat tl e co m m it te d th e Des Mo in es

sh oo ti ng

. Cl ear ba ll is ti cs ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e gu n us ed in th e sh oo ti ng was th e

sa m e on e fo un d un de r Bat tl e’s se at jus t fiv e week s la te r. One ey ewit ne ss id en ti fie d

Bat tl e as th e sh oo te r an d an ot he r ga ve a de sc rip ti on of th e sh oo te r th at m at ch ed

Bat tl e. Giv en th at ot he r e ye w i tn es se s ga ve co nf li ct in g te st im on y

, th e co ur t was

req ui red to weig h wit ne ss cred ib il it y an d de ci de whi c h a c c o u nt s were rel ia bl e.

“ Cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are sq ua rel y wit hi n th e d i s c r e t io n of th e di st ric t co ur t”

an d are gi ve n sp eci al de fere nc e. Uni te d St at es v. Peck

, 16 1 F.3 d 11 71

, 11 74 (8 th Ci r.

19 98 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Goo da le

, 7 3 8 F

. 3 d 91 7, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), cert

.

de ni ed

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 28 56 (2 01 4)

. Giv en th is ev id en ce an d th e de fere nc e affo rd ed th e

d i s tri ct co ur t’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s, we co nc lu de th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o

su pp or t th e se nt en ci n g e n h an cem en t an d th e co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g it

.

VII. Down ward Vari an ce

Fi na ll y

, Bat tl e cl ai m s hi s se nt en ce was un reas on ab le be cau se th e co ur t de ni ed

hi s m ot io n fo r do wnwar d se nt en ci ng va ria nc e. “ ‘W e rev ie w all sen te nc es , whet he r

in s i d e o r ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

, un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n

st an da rd .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. M a r t i n e z, 55 7 F.3 d 59 7, 59 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Pep pe r, 51 8 F.3 d 94 9, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). Bat tl e arg ue s hi s

-1 6-se nt en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en red u ced to av oi d di sp ari ti es wit h Hard y an d Mar sh al l’s

pu ni sh m en ts

. One of th e se ct io n 35 53 (a) fact or s th at co ur ts are to co ns id er is “ th e

ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es am on g de fe nda nts w ith sim ila

r re co rd s

who ha v e b e e n fo un d gu il ty of si m il ar co nd uc t.” 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6)

. It is

un cl ear whe th er Bat tl e is cl ai m in g th e co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by fai li ng to

ad eq ua te ly co ns id er se ct io n (a)( 6) or su bs ta nt iv e erro r by co ns id eri ng bu t im pr op erl y

weig hi ng (a)( 6)

. Eit he r way

, we do no t f i n d th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n. The

di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered al l of th e se ct io n 35 53 (a) fact or s, in cl ud in g (a)( 6)

. A co ur t

do es no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n if it re f u s e s to va ry do wnwar d to av oi d se nt en ci ng

d i sp ari ti es whe re th e de fen da nt is no t si m il arl y si tu at ed to th e ot he r de fen d a n t s i n

qu es ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bru nk en

, 58 1 F.3 d 63 5, 63 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Sect io n

3 5 5 3( a)(6 ) on ly ap pl ie s to di sp ari ti es am on g fed eral de fen da nt s. Uni te d St a t e s v

.

Je rem ia h, 44 6 F.3 d 8 0 5

, 80 7- 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Mar sh al l an d Hard y were no t

pr os e c u t e d in fed eral co ur t. Thu s th ey were no t si m il arl y si tu at ed to Bat tl e an d we

fin d t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to va ry do wnwar d.

VIII. Co nc lu si on

Hav in g re vi ewed th e rec or d c aref ul ly, an d h av in g c on si de red all of t he

arg um en ts on ap pe al , we fin d n o b as is for rev ers al . Thu s we a ffi rm Bat tl e’s

co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

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

-1 7-