## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 37 82

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Alfo ns o M . Tun le y , *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 11

Fi le d: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Alfo ns o Tun le y pl ed gu il ty to 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. §§ 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Afte r a co nt es te d se nt en ci ng

he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Tun le y to 12 0 mo n t h s im pr is on m en t. Tun le y 1

ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li nes. W e

affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Dean W hi pp le

, Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn

1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.I.

Fo r ov er a y ear, Tun le y was in an “ of f an d on ag ai n” ro m an ti c rel at io ns hi p wit h

Daci a W rig ht

. In th e earl y m or ni ng ho ur s of Nov em be r 16

, 20 08

, a f

t e r a n ig ht of

at t e nd in g cl ub s an d dr in ki ng , th e pa ir arri ve d at Tun le y ’s br ot he r’s ho us e, whe re a

pa rty was al read y un de rway

. At th e pa rty, W rig ht at ta ck ed Tun le y an d was res tra in ed
by o nl oo ke rs

. The co up le le ft th e pa rty s ep arat el y aft er W rig ht ’s o u t b u r s t

. Tun le y

wen t ho m e by hi m se lf. Bu t W rig ht arri ve d at hi s res id en ce sh or tl y th erea fte r. Po li ce

were di sp at ch ed to Tun le y ’s ho m e aft er th ey rece iv ed a cal l fro m Tun le y st at in g th at

hi s fri en d ha d be en sh ot

. Whe n po li ce of fic ers arri ve d, th ey st op pe d Tun le y as he

was walk in g away fro m hi s ho us e. Po li ce fo un d a ha nd gu n lying on th e si de walk

ne ar Tun le y

. Po li ce th en en te red Tun le y ’s ho us e an d fo un d W rig ht de ad on th e flo or

of th e b ed ro om . She ha d b een sh ot in th e h ead

.

On Apr il 8, 20 09

, a on e-co un t in di ct m en t was re t u r n e d b y a gr an d jury

ch arg in g Tun le y wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of se ct io ns

92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4 ( a ) ( 2 )

, b a se d on hi s po ss es si on of th e ha nd gu n on Nov em be r 16

, 20 08

. On Feb ru ary 2, 20 10

, Tun le y pl ed gu il ty to th e on e

- c o u n t i n d i c tm en t. The

Uni te d St at es P ro ba ti on Offi ce pr ep ared a pr e-s en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR )

se tt in g Tun le y ’s ba se o f

fen se le ve l at th irt y -ei gh t. The PSR al so in cl ud ed a th reele ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. In arri vi ng at th e ba se of fen se le ve l

of th irt y -ei gh t, th e PSR ap pl ie d a cro ss -ref eren ce to th e Gui de l i n e s s e c ti on 2A1 .2

pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 2K2 .1(c )(1 )(B)

, ba se d on Tun le y ’s po ss es si on of th e fir earm in

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se whe re de at h res ul te d. Tun le y ob jecte d to th e

ap pl ic at io n of se ct io n 2A1 .2, arg ui ng th at W rig ht ’s de at h was no t m ur de r bu t in st ead

was jus ti fie d a s s el f-d efen se

.

The di s t r i c t co ur t co nd uc te d a se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Nov em be r 18

, 20 10

, at

whi ch te n go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es an d fiv e de fen se wit ne ss es te st ifi ed

. The co ur t m ad e

cred ib il it y fin di ng s an d co nc lu d e d th at se ct io ns 2K2 .1(c )(1 )(B) an d 2A1 .2 ap pl ie d

-2

-be cau se th e Gov ern m en t ha d pr ov en by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at Tun le y

was gu il ty of se co nd de gr ee m ur de r. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Tun le y ’s

ob jecti on

. The co ur t se nt en ced Tun le y to 12 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, th e st at ut or y

m ax im um

.

II.

On ap pe al

, Tu n l e y a r g u e s t h at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in arri vi ng at hi s b as e

of fen se le ve l in it s ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Tun le y co n t e n d s th at

th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to di sp ro ve Tun le y a c t e d in la wfu l se lf- de fen se

. In th e

al te rn at iv e, Tun le y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at Tun le y ’s act io ns

co ns ti tu te d se co nd de gr ee m ur de r an d no t vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r. “ W e rev ie w d e

no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s, an d we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r

th e di st ric t cou rt’s fact ua l fin di ng s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Bett s, 50 9 F.3d 44 1, 44 5 (8t h

Cir. 20 07 ). “ The di st ric t co ur t’s cred ib il it y de te rm inati ons ar e ‘ vir tua lly unr ev ie w ab le

on ap pe al .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Bu tl er, 64 6 F .3d 10 38 , 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Gui de li ne s se ct io n 2K2 .1(c )(1 ) di rect s th at “ [i]f th e de f e nd an t us ed or

po ss es se d an y fir earm or am m un it io n i n co nn ect io n wit h th e co m m is si on

. . . of

an ot he r of

fen se ” an d de at h res ul te d, th e di st ric t co ur t is to ap pl y “ th e m os t an al og ou s

of fen se gu id el in e ” f

r o m se ct io n 2A1

. Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, §2 K2.1 (c)( 1)

. Sect io n 2A1

, in tu rn , in cl ud es in st ru ct io ns fo r

di ffer en t le ve ls of ho m ic id e un de r fed eral la w. See USSG §§ 2A1 .1– 5. In th e pr es en t

cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e Gov ern m en t pr ov ed se co nd de gr ee m ur de r by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t arri ve d at th e ba se 2

of fen se lev el of t hi rty-eig ht . See USSG § 2A1 .2.

Und e r f e de ral la w, “ [m ]urd er is th e un la wfu l ki ll in g of a hu m an be in g wit h 2

m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht .” 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 (a). Any m ur de r th at i s n o t e n u mer at ed as a fi rs t d eg ree m

ur de r is cat eg or iz ed as m ur de r in th e se co nd de gr ee. Id

. -3

-Tun le y fir st co nt en ds th at th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to di sp ro ve hi s cl ai m th at he

sh ot W rig ht in se lf- de fen se

. “ In th e ab s e n c e o f a co nv ic ti on fo r an ot he r fel on y

of fen se , th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran c e o f th e ev id en ce al l of th e

es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e un de rlyin g fel o n y o f f en se , in cl ud in g th e ab se nc e of an y

de fen se s.” B et ts , 50 9 F .3d at 4 45

.

If Tun le y ha d be en ch arg ed an d tri ed in Mi ss ou ri, th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri wou ld

ha ve ha d th e bu rd en of pr ov in g be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Tun le y di d no t act in

la wfu l se lf- de fen se

. See Mi ss ou ri v. Hen de rs on , 31 1 S.W .3d 41 1, 41 4 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 3

20 10 ); se e al so Bet ts

, 50 9 F.3 d at 44 5- 46

. Mi ss ou ri Rev is ed St at ut e se ct io n 56 3.0 31

“ se ts fo rth th e pa ram et ers fo r th e us e of no n- de ad ly an d de ad ly fo rce in se lf- de fen se

an d in de fen se of ot he rs .” St at e v. Cl in ch

, 33 5 S.W .3d 57 9, 58 6 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 11 ).

Sel f-d efen se as a jus ti fic at io n fo r ki ll in g is no t co di fie d by fed eral st at ut e, bu t 3

is in st ead a “ ba si c rig ht

, reco gn iz ed by m an y le ga l syste m s fro m an ci en t ti m es to th e

pr es en t da y .” See McDo na ld v

. C i t y o f C h ic ag o, 13 0 S. Ct

. 30 20

, 30 36 (2 01 0)

. In
ad dr es si ng se lf- de fen se cl ai m s to m ur de r ch arg es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 (a), co ur ts
ha ve tra di ti on al ly rel ie d on th e co m m on la w de fin it io n of se lf- de f e ns e. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Mi lk

, 44 7 F.3 d 59 3, 59 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ If a p e r s on reas on ab ly

be li ev es th at fo rce is ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect hi m se lf or an ot he r p e r s o n fro m wha t he

reas on ab ly be li ev es to be un la wfu l ph y si cal ha rm ab ou t to be in fli ct ed by an ot he r an d

us es su ch fo rce, th en he act ed in se lf de fen se or de fen se of an ot he r pe rs on .” (q uo ti ng di st ric t co ur t jury in st ru ct io ns )); se e al so Bro wn v. Uni te d St at es , 25 6 U.S. 33 5, 34 3 (1 92 1) (“ [I]f a m an reas on ab ly be li ev e s t h a t h e is in im m ed ia te da ng er of de at h or

gr ie vo us bo di ly ha rm fro m hi s ass ai la nt he m ay st an d hi s gro un d and th at if h e ki ll s hi m he ha s no t su ccee de d th e bo un ds of la wfu l se lf de fen ce.”) ; 2 W ay ne R. LaFav e, Su bs ta nt iv e Cri m in al Law § 10 .4 (2 d ed .) (West 20 11 ) (d is cu ss in g t h e o ry of

se lf- de fen se ). In th ei r br ie fin g, th e p a r t i e s do no t ad dr es s th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of

Tun le y ’s rel ia nc e on a de fin it io n of se lf- d e f e n s e fo un d in st at e la w ag ai ns t an

en ha nc em en t ba se d on a f e d e r a l of fen se

. Bec au se we fin d th at Tun le y ’s cl ai m of

se lf- de fen se un de r th e Mi ss ou r i st at ut e is no t su pp or te d by th e fact s, we de cl in e to
ad dr es s th e m or e co m

pl ex is su es of du e pr oc es s an d fed eral is m th at m ig ht ot he rwis e be im pl ic at ed by T un le y ’s rel ia nc e o n M is so ur i’s s el f-d efen se st at ut e. -4

-The ve rs io n of se ct io n 56 3.0 31 whi ch was in ef f e c t on th e da te th at Tun le y sh ot

W rig ht st at es in pe rti ne nt pa rt:

1. A pe rs on may, su bjec t to th e pr ov is io ns of su bs ect io n 2 of th is

se ct io n, us e ph y si cal fo rce up on an ot he r pe rs on whe n an d to th e ex te nt
he or sh e reas on ab ly b e l i e v es su ch fo rce to be ne ces sa ry to de fen d

hi m se lf or he rs el f or a th ird pe rs on fro m wha t he or sh e reas on ab ly

be li ev es to be th e u se or i m m in en t u se of u nl awfu l fo rce b y su ch ot he r

pe rs on

. . . .

2. A pe rs o n may n ot us e de ad ly fo rce up on an ot he r pe rs on un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces sp eci fie d i n s ub se ct io n 1 of t hi s s ect io n u nl es s:

(1 ) He o r sh e reas on ab ly be li ev es th at su ch de ad ly fo rce is

ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect hi m se lf or he rs el f or an ot he r ag ai ns t de at h,

se rio us ph y si cal in

jury, or an y

for ci bl e fel on y ; o r

(2 ) Su ch fo rce is us e d ag ai ns t a pe rs on who un la wfu ll y en te rs ,

rem ai ns aft er un la wfu ll y en te rin g, or at te m pt s to un la wfu ll y en te r

a dwe ll in g, r es id en ce, or ve hi cl e la wfu ll y oc cu pi ed by su ch

pe rs on

.

Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 56 3.0 31 .1-2 (2 00 8)

. Thu s, un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, Tun le y wou ld ha ve

be en jus ti fie d in us in g de ad ly fo rce ag ai ns t W rig ht if Tun le y reas on ab ly be lie ve d su ch

fo rce was ne ces sa ry to de fen d hi m se lf fro m th e us e or im m in en t us e of un la wfu l fo rce by W rig ht an d ei th er: (1 ) “ reas on ab ly be li ev e[d ] th at su ch d e a dl y fo rce [was ]

ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect hi m se lf

. . . ag ai ns t de at h, se rio us ph y si cal in jury, or an y fo rci bl e

fel on y ”; or (2 ) su ch f

o r c e was us ed ag ai ns t W rig ht aft er sh e un la wfu ll y en te red

Tun le y ’s res id en ce, rem ai ne d aft er un la wfu ll y en te rin g, or at te m pt ed to un la wfu ll y

en te r. See i d.

Tun le y as se rts th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t sh owe d th at hi s

sh oo ti ng of W rig ht was jus ti fie d as a de fen se of hi m se lf an d hi s ho m e. Acco rd in g to

-5

-Tun le y ’s te st im on y at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Tun le y le ft hi s br ot he r’s pa rty an d wen t

to a ne arb y pa rk to av o i d Wr i g h t

. W hi le at th e pa rk

, Tun le y rece iv ed a nu m be r of
ph on e cal ls fro m W rig ht

, bu t he ig no red th em

. Afte r W rig ht st op pe d cal li ng , Tun le y

wait ed a p p r ox im at el y fiv e m in ut es an d wen t ho m e. Tun le y te st ifi ed th at on ce he

arri ve d ho m e, he le ft th e fro nt do or op en an d b e g a n to go th ro ug h th e ho us e to

de te rm in e whe th er an y on e was th ere. Dur in g th is swe ep , Tun le y sa w Wr i g h t ’s

sh ad ow ap pr oa ch i n g h i s f r o nt do or , an d he jog ge d to th e do or to pr ev en t he r fro m

en te rin g. A t ug -o f-war r es ul te d o ve r th e cl os ed -b ut -u ns ecu red st or m do or

. Tun le y

cl ai m ed th at he he ld t h e do or cl os ed wit h hi s le ft ha nd whi le he cal le d hi s br ot he r

us in g a cel lp ho ne in hi s ri g h t h a n d

. W rig ht ev en tu al ly g ai ne d en try. Acco rd in g to

Tun le y , on ce W rig ht was in si de

, sh e ch as ed Tun le y in to th e be dr oo m an d co nt in ue d

he r at ta ck ag ai ns t hi m

. Tun le y was ki ck ed by W rig ht

, an d he fel l to th e flo or

. W hi le

he was on th e flo or , he gr ab be d a ha nd gu n th at was un de r so m e cl ot he s in hi s cl os et

, ch am be red a ro un d, an d s ho t Wrig ht

.

The di st ric t co ur t re

jecte d Tu nl ey ’s acco un t o f wha t o ccu rred in th e ho us e as

la ck in g cred ib il it y

. In st ea d

, t h e tri al co ur t fo un d th at th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at

Tun le y ki ll ed W rig ht wit h m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht an d th at hi s cl ai m of se lf- de fen se was

a “ co ve r-u p.” In it s fact ua l fin di ng s , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Tun le y cal le d hi s

br ot he r an d a fri en d m in ut es be fo re he call ed 9- 1- 1. The co ur t di sc ou nt ed Tun le y ’s

te st im on y of a st ru gg le at th e fr o n t d o o r

. Alt ho ug h th e co ur t fo un d th at th e

co nf ro nt at io n be twee n W rig ht an d Tun l e y co nt in ue d, th e co ur t in te rp ret ed th e

ev id en ce as sh owi ng th at Tun le y le t W rig ht in to th e h o u s e , t h at it “ m ay ha ve be en

pa y ba ck ti m e” an d th at Tun le y “ kn ew he ha d a lo ad ed gu n in th e ho us e.” In de ci di ng

whe th er th e sh oo ti ng of W rig ht was m ur de r or m an sl au gh te r, th e co ur t fo un d th at th e

ev id en ce su pp or te d a ch arg e of se co nd de g ree m ur de r. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co ur t

co nc lu de d th at Tun le y ha d th e r e q u i si te in te nt to ki ll W rig ht whe n he ret rie ve d th e

gu n, ch am

be red th e ro un d, p oi nt ed it at Wrig ht , and sh ot he r in th e h ead

.

-6

-Afte r an in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd

, we fin d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s. Tun le y ’s te st im on y th at W rig ht br ok e in to hi s ho us e by fo rce

was di sc red it ed by th e Gov ern m en t. The re is no ev id e n c e to co rro bo rat e Tun le y ’s

as se rti on th at a tu g- of

-war oc cu rred at th e st or m do or , an d Tun le y ’s cl ai m th at he was

ab le to cal l hi s br ot he r whi le tryin g to ke ep th e d o o r c l os ed st rai ns cred ul it y

. Fu rth erm or e, Tun le y ’s reco ll ect io n of th e ti m in g of ev en ts is se ve rel y un de rm in ed by
ph on e reco rd s. Acco rd in g to Tun le y , he wait ed in a pa rk aft er he le f t hi s br ot he r’s

pa rty un ti l W rig ht ’s ph on e cal ls st op pe d. W rig ht ’s la st ph on e cal l to Tun le y oc cu rred

at 3: 48 a.m

. The pa rk was le ss th an f o u r b l o ck s fro m Tun le y ’s ho us e, an d Tun le y

te st ifi ed th at hi s ho m e was ve ry sm al l an d qu ic kl y na vi ga bl e. Tun le y di d no t cal l hi s

br ot he r un ti l 4: 25 a.m .—t hi rty-sev en m in ut es aft er t he las t call fro m W rig ht

. Thu s,

we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n to di sb el ie ve Tun le y ’s cl ai m th at hi s

de fen si ve swe ep of th e ho m e was su dd en ly in te rru pt ed by an al te rcat io n at th e fro nt

en tra nc e.

Tun le y ’s te st im on y of wha t ha pp en ed in th e ho us e was dr am at ic al ly di ffer en t

fro m hi s ori gi na l acco un t to po li ce. Tun le y to ld th e 9 -1 -1 di sp at ch er t ha t h is fri en d

ha d be en sh ot

, bu t he refu se d to an swe r an y qu es ti on s ab ou t who ha d sh ot he r. W he n

po li ce ar riv ed , Tun le y

to ld th e o ffi cers th at he ha d b een in vo lv ed in a st ru gg le wit h

two m en who ha d jum

pe d hi m an d hi s gi rlf

rie nd an d th at sh ot s ha d be en fir ed in th e

al te rcat io n. Tun le y to ld th e of f i c e r s t h a t th e reas on he was on th e si de walk was

be c a u s e h e w as ch as in g aft er th e m en

. W e fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co nc lu si on th at th e Gov ern m en t di sp ro ve d Tun le y ’s cl ai m of se lf- de fen se as an aft erth e-fa ct fab ric at io n a im ed at f ur th eri ng hi s o wn l eg al de fen se

.

Tun le y ’s se co nd cl ai m of erro r is th at th e di st ric t co u r t e r r e d b y fin di ng th at

Tun le y ’s act io ns am ou nt ed to se co nd de gr ee m ur de r rat he r th an m an sl au gh te r.

Bec au se Tun le y fai le d to rai se th is cl ai m of erro r be fo re th e tri al co ur t, ou r rev ie w is

li m it ed to pl ai n erro r rev ie w. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 57 4 F.3 d 54 6, 54 9 (8 th Ci r.

-7

-20 09 ). “ It is w e l l es ta bl is he d th at if th e de fen da nt ha d en ou gh ti m e be twee n th e

pr ov oc at io n an d th e ki ll in g to refl ect on hi s or he r in te nd ed co ur se of act io n, th en th e

m ere fact of pa ss io n wou ld no t red uc e th e cri m e be lo w m ur de r.” Uni te d St at es v.

Mi lk

, 44 7 F.3 d 59 3, 59 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m it te d) ; se e al so Mu ll an ey v.

W il bu r, 42 1 U.S. 68 4, 69 6 (1 97 5)

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id e n c e t h a t Tu nl ey fo rm ed hi s in te nt to ki ll W rig ht whe n he ch am be red a ro un d,

ai m ed

, an d sh ot W rig ht in th e he ad

. Test im on y of th e ch i e f med ic al ex am in er

s u p p or te d a fin di ng th at Tun le y sh ot W rig ht fro m a di st an ce gr eat er th an an a r m’s

le ng th

. A li ve bu l l et was fo un d un de r W rig ht ’s bo dy, co rro bo rat in g Tun le y ’s

te st im on y th at he eject ed t h e b u l l e t to m ak e su re th at a li ve ro un d was ch am be red

. Tun le y ha d ad eq ua te ti m e to refl ect on hi s in te nd ed co ur se of act io n. The refo re, th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at th e sh oo ti ng co ns ti tu te d se co nd de gr ee m ur de r

rat he r th an vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r an d th at Gui de li ne s se ct io ns 2K2 .1(c )(1 )(B) an d

2A1 .2 ap pl ie d.

III.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.



## __________________________

-8

-