# 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- 12 58

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

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.

Bryan Sco tt Hol m

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 14
Fil ed : M arch 21 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Bryan Sco tt Hol m pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d

am m un it io n. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 9 2 4 (a)( 2)

. The pl ea ag reem en t in cl ud ed

a st ip ul at io n, no t bi nd i n g on th e co ur t at se nt en ci ng , “ th at th e fir earm was no t us ed

in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2K2

. 1 (b )(6 )(B) .”

See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (c)( 1) (B). The Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (“PS R”)

no ne th el es s reco m

men d e d th at th e co ur t ap pl y th is fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t. Atse nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Hol m ’s ti m el y ob jecti on to th e reco m

m en de d 1

en ha nc em en t, de te rm in ed th at hi s ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge is 84 to 10 5 m on th s in

pr is on , an d se nt en ced Hol m to 96 m on th s in pr is on , th e m id dl e of th at ran ge

. Hol m

ap pe al s th e se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e rec or d d oe s n ot su pp or t t he § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

en ha nc em en t. W e d is ag ree a nd th eref or e aff irm. 2

Sect io n 2K2 .1 of th e Gui de li ne s c o n ta in s Offen se Co nd uc t pr ov is io ns th at

ap pl y to Hol m ’s fir earm po s s e s s i on of fen se

. The fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t at is su e

ap pl i e s i f a de fen da nt “ us ed or po ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n in co nn ect io n
wit h an ot he r f

e l o n y o ffen se .” § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. “ In ap pl y in g § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) whe n

t he de fen da nt ha s no t be en co nv ic te d of an ot he r st at e or fed eral fel on y of fen se , t h e
di st ric t co ur t m

us t fin d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at an ot he r fel on y
of fen se was co m

m it te d, an d th at us e or po s s e s s i o n of th e fir earm ‘facil it at ed ’ th at

ot he r fel on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Lit tre ll

, 55 7 F.3 d 61 6, 61 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W he n th e
is su e is whe th er the ev id en ce su pp or ts th es e fin di ng s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt’s

de te rm in at io n fo r cl ear e rro r. Id. at 61 7- 61 8.

Para gr ap h 1 4 o f Hol m ’s PSR s et for th th e fo ll owi ng off en se co nd uc t fa ct s:

14

. On May 21

, 20 12

, LE O [la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers ] ex ecu te d a

se arch warra nt at Hol m ’s res id en ce

. . . whe re th ey fo un d [th ree fir earm s,

am m un it io n, an d dr ug p a r a p h e r n a li a]

. . . . At th e ti m e of th e se arch

, Hol m was no t pr es en t. LEO lo cat ed Hol m d r i v in g an d co nd uc te d a
tra ffi c st op

. Upo n se arch in g Hol m , LEO fo un d a lo ad ed .38 sp eci al
HW M rev ol ve r in hi s wais tb an d, am m un it io n, a st un gu n in a cas e in hi s

The Hon or ab le St e p h a n i e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

Hol m do es no t an d co ul d no t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by in ve st ig at in g 2
whe th er th e pl ea ag reem en t st ip ul at io n accu r a t e l y refl ect ed co nd uc t rel ev an t to a
pr op er s en te nc e. See Un it ed Sta te s v . DeW it t, 3 66 F.3d 66 7, 6 71 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

-2

-fro nt co at po ck et

, a kn ife on a la nyard aro un d h i s ne ck

, a ba gg ie of

ap pr ox im at el y on e-h al f gr am of m et ha m ph et am in e, an d two gl as s pi pe s.

Hol m wit hd rew h is in it ia l o bjec ti on to pa rag rap h 1 4 p rio r to sen te nc in g.

The m et ha m

ph et am in e fo un d whe n Hol m was se arch ed on May 21

, 20 12

, was

ev id en ce of a dr ug po s s e s s i o n of fen se

. Fo r pu rp os es of th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

en ha nc em en t, a fi rear m

is po ss es se d “ in co nn ect io n wi th ” a dr ug po ss es si on fel on y
if it “ faci li ta te d, or ha d th e po te nt ia l of faci li ta ti ng ” th at o t h e r f e l o n y. § 2K2 .1,

co m m en t. (n .14 (A)). App lying th is st an da rd

, we ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld : “ whe n a dr ug

us er ch oo se s to carr y il le ga l dr ug s ou t in to pu bl ic wit h a fir earm , a n ‘in co nn ect io n
wit h ’ f in di ng ‘w il l rare ly be cl earl y erro ne ou s.’” Uni te d St at es v. Sn eed

, 74 2 F.3 d

34 1, 34 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Fu en te s Torr es , 52 9 F.3 d 82 5, 82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Swan so n, 61 0 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 );

Uni te d St at es v. Reg an s, 12 5 F.3 d 68 5, 68 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ), ce r t

. d e n i e d

, 52 3 U.S.

1 0 6 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e 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 y ou r po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e in th e sa m e car as y ou r lo ad ed .38

cal ib er ha nd gu n faci li ta te d or ha d th e po te nt ia l to faci li ta te y ou r met h p os se ss io n,

ev en th is rel at iv el y

sm al l u se r am ou nt .” Thi s fi nd in g was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s.

The re main in g el em en t th at m us t be fo un d to ap pl y th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

en ha nc em en t -- th at Hol m ’s po ss es si on of a sm al l us er am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e

was a fe lo ny of

fen se -- is

, in th is cas e, a m or e co m pl ex is su e. The Gui de li ne s de fin e

“ fel on y of

fen se ” as “ an y fed eral

, st at e, or lo cal of fen se pu ni sh ab le by de at h or a te rm
of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g on e y ear,” reg ard le ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d. U.S.S.G.
§ 4 A 1

. 2 ( o )

. Hol m ’s po ss es si on of a us er am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e was no t a
fed eral fel on y of

fen se , se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 4a (a), so th is is su e tu rn s on st at e la w. Io wa
la w pr oh ib it s th e kn owi ng or in te nt io na l po ss es si on of a us er am ou nt of a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e su ch as m et ha m ph et am in e (u nl es s pu rs ua nt to a va li d pr es cri p t i o n ). See

Io wa Co de §§ 12 4.4 01 (5 ), 12 4.2 06 (4 )(b ). The i ni ti al vi ol at io n of § 1 24 .40 1( 5) is a

-3

-“ se rio us m is de m ean or .” Bu t an of fen de r who ha s a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r vi ol at in g an

en um erat ed Iowa dru g l aw is gu il ty of an ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or ; i f th e o ffen de r 3

ha s two su ch pr io r co nv ic ti on s, a vi ol at io n of § 12 4.4 01 (5 ) is a cl as s “ D” fel on y

. A

cri m e de si gn at ed as an ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or un de r I o w a l aw fal ls wit hi n th e
Gu i d e l i ne s de fin it io n of fel on y of fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Ph il li ps , 63 3 F.3 d 11 47

, 11 48 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; s ee Iowa Cod e § 90 3.1 (2 ). Para gr ap hs 39 an d 4 0 o f th e PSR

, to whi ch Hol m di d no t ob je c t

, r e c i te d th at he was co nv ic te d of “ Po ss es si on of

Co cai ne ” in an Io wa Dis tri ct Co ur t in 19 94

, an d “ Po ss es si on of Met ha m ph et am in e”

in an ot he r Io wa Dis tri ct Co ur t i n 1 99 5.

Hol m ob jecte d to pa rag rap h 23 of th e PSR, whi ch reco m m en de d th e fo ur -le ve l
§ 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t. In res po ns e, th e p ro ba ti on off ic er ex pl ai ne d:

On May 21

, 20 12

, th e de fen da nt was arre st ed fo r th e i n s ta nt of fen se an d w a s c ha rg ed wit h Po ss es si on of a Co nt ro ll ed Su bs ta nc e, Thi rd or Su bs eq ue nt Offen se , un de r Io wa Co de 12 4.4 01 (5 )D. Thi s cas e

was di sm is se d in li eu of [th is ] fed eral pr os e c u t i o n. Acco rd in g to th e Io wa Co de un de r whi ch th e de fen da nt was ch arg ed

. . . . “ [a] pe rs on who

co m m it s a vi ol at io n of th is su b s ect io n an d who ha s pr ev io us ly be en

co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g th is ch ap t e r or ch ap te r 12 4A, 12 4B

, or 45 3B is

gu il ty of an ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or

. A pe rs on who co m m it s a vi ol at io n of th is su bs ect io n a n d h a s pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d two or

m or e ti m es of vi ol at in g [th os e ch ap te rs ] is gu il ty of a cl as s ‘D ’ fel on y .”

* * * * *

. . . . The pr ob at io n of

fic e fu rth er no te s th e de fen da nt was o r ig in al ly
ch arg ed in th e st at e of Io wa wit h a cl as s D fel on y ch arg e in th e st at e of
Io wa fo r Po ss es si on of Met ha m ph et am in e as refe ren ced ab ov e. Bas ed

Ch ap te rs 12 4, 12 4A, 12 4B

, an d 45 3B of th e Io wa Co de

. Ch ap te r 12 4 de fin es 3

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of

fen se s. Ch ap te r 12 4A de al s wit h imi t a t i o n co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc es , ch ap te r 12 4B wit h pr ecu rs o r su bs ta nc es , an d ch ap te r 45 3B im po se s an

ex ci se tax on un la wfu l d eal in g i n c on tro ll ed su bs ta nc es

.

-4

-on th es e reas on s th e PSR wil l res pe ct fu ll y rem ai n un ch an ge d. The is su e

is un res ol ve d.

At se nt en ci ng , t he go ve rn m en t ad vi se d th at it wou ld pr es en t no ev id en ce

reg ard in g th e reco m

m en de d § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t be cau se it ha d st ip ul at ed

in th e pl ea ag reem en t th at th e en ha nc em en t di d no t ap pl y. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t th en 4

ov erru le d Hol m ’s ob

jec t i on to th e PSR reco m m en da ti on

. Reg ard in g th is fel on y
of fen se is su e, th e co ur t co nc lu de d: “ be cau se y ou ha ve be en pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d on

two or m or e oc cas io ns of po ss es si on s un de r Io wa la w

. . . y o u r p os se ss io n of

m et ha m ph et am in e o n [M ay ] 21 st was a fel on y

. . . [ or ] an ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or

un de r Io wa Co de pr ov is io n 12 4.4 01

, an d it ’s su bp arag rap h 5.” Hol m th en ob jecte d

to th e en ha nc em en t on th ree gr ou nd s, in cl ud in g th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t pr ov ed

th at hi s po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e “ wou ld ha ve be en a fel on y co nv ic ti on .” Bu t

he di d no t art ic ul at e wha t ad di ti on al pr oo f be y on d th e fact s in th e PSR was req ui red

.

On ap pe al

, Hol m fil ls in th is bl an k, arg ui ng th e reco rd is in su ffi c i e n t to

es ta bl is h th at hi s m et ha m ph et am in e po ss es si on was a fel on y o f f e ns e un de r th e
Gui de li ne s be cau se pa rag r a p h s 3 9 an d 40 of th e PSR di d no t sp eci fy th at th os e

co nv ic ti on s were un de r ch ap te rs 12 4, 12 4A, 12 4B

, or 45 3B of th e I o w a Co de

. Abs en t th at pr oo f, he arg ue s, a vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de § 12 4.4 01 (5 ) is no t an

ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or or fel on y un de r Io wa la w, so it i s no t a “ fel on y of fen se ”

un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.2 (o ), an d t he § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t d oe s n ot ap pl y

.

Fo r th is reas on , on ap pe al th e go ve rn m en t ta ke s no po si ti on reg ard in g th e 4
di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ap pl y th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t. As to th is fel on y of fen se is su e, th e go ve rn m en t’s br ie f st at es : “ it do es no t ap pe ar th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d by co nc lu di ng th at Hol m ’s po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e on May 2[ 1], 20 12

, qu al ifi ed as ei th er an ag gr av at ed m is de m ean o r or a cl as s ‘D ’ fel on y un de r Sect io n 12 4.4 01 (5 ) of

th e Io wa Co de .”

-5

-Thi s arg um en t ov erl oo ks th e pr ob at io n of fic er’s reas on fo r ov erru li ng Hol m ’s

ob jecti on to th e reco m

m en de d en ha nc em en t -- th at a st at e pr os ecu to r ch arg ed Hol m
wit h “ Po ss es si on of a Co nt ro ll ed Su bs ta nc e, Thi rd or Su bs eq ue nt Offen se ” fo r th e

m et ha m ph et am in e he po ss es se d on May 21

, 20 12

. Tho ug h th at ch arg e was dr op pe d

in fav or of th is fed eral pr os ecu ti on , th is was po werfu l, if no t co nc lu si ve ev id en ce th at

th e p r i or dr ug of

fen se s li st ed in Para gr ap hs 39 an d 40 of th e PSR were pr ed ic at e
of fen se s th a t w o u l d ha ve m ad e th is th ird of fen se a cl as s “ D” fel on y , or at le as t an

ag gr av at ed m is de m ean or , un de r Io wa Co de § 1 24 .40 1( 5)

.

I f h e di sa gr eed wit h th is in fere nc e th e pr ob at io n of fic er dr ew fro m th e st at e

co ur t ch arg e, Hol m sh ou ld ha ve ti m el y rai se d t hi s is su e in th e di st ric t co ur t, gi vi ng
th e pr ob at io n of

fic er an d th e co ur t an op po rtu ni ty to co ns ul t st at e co ur t reco rd s whi ch

li ke ly wou ld ha ve co nf

irmed th e ba se s of th es e pr io r Io wa co nv ic ti on s. Our ex te ns iv e

res earc h ha s un co ve red no Io wa cas e ch arg in g a m et ha m ph et am in e po ss es si on
of fen se un de r an Io wa Co de ch ap te r ot he r th an ch ap te r 12 4, whi ch st ro ng ly su gg es ts

th at Hol m di d no t pu rs ue th is is su e at se nt en ci ng be cau se it wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le

to do so

. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it

cl ear erro r, m

uc h le ss pl ai n erro r, in de te rm in in g th e pr ob at io n o f f i c er co rrec tl y 5

co nc lu de d th at Hol m ’s p o s s e s s io n of m et ha m ph et am in e on May 21

, 20 12

, wou ld

ha ve be en a se co nd or th ird of fen se un de r th e pr ed ic at e st at ut es en um erat ed in Io wa
Co de § 12 4.4 01 (5 ). The refo re, hi s si m ul ta ne ou s p o s s e s s io n of m et ha m ph et am in e 6

“ Pres erv in g an is su e is a m at te r of m ak in g a ti m el y ob jecti on to th e tri al co ur t 5

an d cl earl y s t a t i n g t h e gr ou nd s fo r th e ob jecti on , so th at th e tri al co ur t ha s an
op po rtu ni ty to pr ev en t or co rrec t th e erro r in th e fir st in s t a n c e

. ” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 9 94 F.2d 12 87 , 12 94 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

In hi s repl y br ie f, Hol m sp ecu la te s th at hi s 19 94 an d 19 95 co nv ic ti on s co ul d 6

“ co nc ei va bl y ” ha ve be en fo r vi ol at in g ch ap te r 12 6, whi ch pr oh ib it s ad ul te rat io n,

m is br an di ng , an d m is la be li ng of dr ug s, or ch ap te r 15 5A, th e Io wa Ph arm acy Prac ti ce Act. W e do no t co ns id er is su es fir st rai se d i n a rep ly b rie f, an d it cert ai nl y was no t pl ai n e rro r fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t n ot to co ns id er s uc h fa r-fe tc he d t he or ie s.

-6

-was “ an ot he r fel on y of fen se ” th at was faci li ta te d by hi s po ss es si on of th e fir earm , an d

th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s.

H a v i n g c o n cl ud ed th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Hol m

po ss es se d th e fir e a r m i n co nn ect io n wit h a fel on y m et ha m ph et am in e po ss es si on
of fen se , we ne ed no t co ns id er th e co u r t ’s a lt ern at iv e ba si s fo r ap pl y in g th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) en ha nc em en t -- th at hi s di sc ha rg e of a fir earm th e ni gh t be fo re hi s

M a y 21

, 20 12

, arre st was a vi ol at io n of Io wa Co de 72 4.3 0 th at is a fel on y of f e n s e

un de r th e Gui de li ne s. See Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 42 2 F.3 d 71 5, 72 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ),

c e r t

. d e n i ed

, 54 6 U.S. 11 27 (2 00 6)

. Hol m arg ue s th ere was no pr oo f th at h e
di sc ha rg ed th e gu n in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly, co rrec tl y no ti ng th at th e PSR st at ed th e
di sc ha rg e was acci de nt al

.

Fi na ll y , H o l m ur ge s us to co ns id er ad di ti on al m at eri al no t in th e reco rd on

ap pe al u n d e r F e d e ral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 10 (e). W e pr ev io us ly de ni ed

Hol m ’s Ru le 10 m ot io n, an d he m ak es no sh owi ng th at a ny of th is m at eri al wou ld

affe ct ou r res ol ut io n of th e on ly se nt en ci ng i s s u e rai se d in th is di rect ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we dec li ne to tak e u p t he Ru le 10 (e) i ss ue

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-7

-