NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 08a0039n.06 Filed: January

10, 2008 No. 06-6260 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DEMARCUS ROGERS , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE
OPI NI ON

Before: DA UG HTREY, GILMAN, and COOK, Cir cuit Judges
. RONALD LEE GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ge. Demar cus Rog ers pled guilty to being a fe lon in possession of a firea

rm. He was char g ed with the offe nse af ter shooting Rico Coates four times during an ar g ument betwee n them. The district cour t enh a n c ed Rog ers’ s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines rang e af ter finding by a prepondera nce of the evidence that (1) Roger s’s related conduct constituted
an a ssa ult wi th i nte nt t o c omm it f

ir st- de g re e mur de r, (2 ) C oate s su sta ine d li fe-t hrea te nin g bo dil y injuries, and (3) Roge rs met the Guidelines’ definition of an Ar med Care er Criminal

. R og ers wa s sentenc ed to 327 months of imprisonment. He a rg ues on appe al that the district c ourt violated his Six th A mendment rig ht to trial by jury wh e n it fo und th a t hi s r e la te d c on du c t qu a lif ie d a s atte mpt e d f

ir st- de g re e mur de r. Rog e rs a lso argues that, base d on this finding, the district court improperly calc ulated his G uidelines rang e and2

imposed an unre asonable sentenc e. F or the re asons set for th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND I n J une of 2004, Rico Coate s went to the re sidence of Thomas Scott to talk to Scott and Roge rs about some tire rims that ha d been stolen from Coates’s brother. T he discussion esca lated into an argument. R o g ers then pulled out a semi-automatic ha

ndg un and anothe r pistol and shot Coates m ultiple times. Coates was unarme d. After the first shot, Coates s tag g ere d to the front door
and fe ll t o th e g ro un d outs ide . Sco tt atte mpt e d to int e rv e ne and sto p Ro g e rs , b ut R og e rs sh ot S c ott in the hand. Roge rs then exit ed the home, stood ove r Coates, and continued to shoot at him. Coate s was shot a total of f

our times—in t h e s i d e, s t o mach, a nd twice in the thig h. When by standers
resc ued Coates by

pulling him into a near

by car , Roge rs continued to fire shots in the direc tion of Coates until the car

was out of r ang e. Coates under

went two surg erie s and had to re main in the hos pital for nearly a mont h. When Roge rs was a

rre sted, he ha d in his possession the semi-automatic we apon that he ha d used to shoot Coates. Althoug h Roge rs admitted to shooting Coates, he cla imed that he had a cted in self- defe nse. R o ger s ev en tu al l y t o l d t h e p o l i ce wh er e t h ey co u l d fi n d t h e s ec o n d

we ap o nu s edi nt h e s h o o t i n g. I n May o f 2 0 0 6 , R o ger s p l ed g uilty to being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

. The Prese ntence Report (PSR) c alculate d Roge rs’s base offe nse leve l under the Sente ncing Guidelines at 24 be cause the offe nse at iss ue was committed afte r he had ama ssed at lea st two felony
c on vic tio ns fo r cr ime s of vio le nc e . Ro g e rs ’s of fe ns e le ve l w a s th e n r a ise d to 33 be c a us e the PSR
rec ommenced that the cross-r efe renc e fo r attempted murder be applied pursua nt to Guidelines § 2 A2 .1 . T he PSR n ote d th a t § 2 A2 .1 (a ) was a pp lic a ble be c a us e “ the ob

je c t of the of fe ns e committed by [R og ers] on J une 29, 2004, would have constituted first deg ree murder. ” It f u rt her3

rec ommended an a dditional increa se of four leve ls due to the “life- threatening ” natur e of Coate s’s injuries under Guidelines § 2A2.1(b). As a re sult, the PS R recommende d that Roge rs’s maximum offe nse leve l b e ra ised to 37, with a downwa rd adjustment of 3 points for a cce ptance of responsibility , bring ing his fina l offense level to 34. The P SR also deter mined that Roge rs qualified as an A rmed Car eer

Criminal under Guidelines § 4B 1.4. At Roge rs’s sentenc ing hear ing, the district court applied the “Cross-Ref ere nce” provision of Guidelines § 2K2.1 to de termine the of fense level for

Roge rs’s 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ) violation. Se c tio n 2 K2 .1 (c )( 1) state s th a t “[i]f the de fe nd ant use d or pos se sse d a ny fi re arm or a mmunit ion

in
connec tion with the co m m i s s i o n or attempted c ommissi on of anothe r off ense . . . , a

pply § 2X1.1 (Attempt, Solicitation, or C onspiracy ) i n respe ct t o that other off ense, if the resulting offe nse leve l is gr eate r than that de termined [under 2k2.1].” Section 2X1.1(c )(1) in turn provides that “[w]hen an attempt, solicitation, or conspi rac y is ex pressly

cover ed by

another offe nse g uideline sec tion, apply that g uideline sec tion.” Ba sed on t he evidence be fore it, the district court found that Rog ers’ s firea rms offe nse wa s part of a course of conduc t that c ulminated in the willful, intentional, and premeditate d attempted murder of Coates, and that a cross-re fer ence to attempted murder as provided in Guidelines § 2A2.1 was ther efor e appr opriate. G uidelines § 2A2.1(a ) sets for th a base offe nse leve l of 33 “if the object of the off

ense w ould have c onstitut ed first de g ree murder,” and a ba se off ense le v el of 27 “other wise.” In acc ordanc e with the finding that Roge rs’s ac tions constitut ed attempted first-deg ree murder, the court adjusted Roge rs’s offe nse level to 33 and then adopted t h e P SR’s
rec ommendations for both a four- level enhanc ement due to the “life- threatening ” natur e of Coate s’s injuries and a thr ee- level re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty
. After deter mining that Rog ers ha d a fina l offense level of 34 a nd a cr iminal hist ory

cate g ory of VI , the district court ca l cu l ated Rog ers’ s Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e at 262- 327 months of4

imprisonment. The court then se ntence d Roge rs to 327 m o n t h s i n p rison and thre e y ear s of supervised r elea se. This timely appea l followed.
II. AN AL YSI S A. Ro ge r s’ s Six th Am e ndm e nt c lai m We reviewconstitutional challeng es to a defe n d ant’s sentence de novo. United States v. Copeland , 321 F.3d 582, 601 (6th Cir. 2003)

. A defe ndant’s Six th A mendment rig ht to have a jury deter mine the fa cts bey ond a re asonable doubt, how ever , is lim ited to fac ts that increa se a se ntence bey ond the s tatutory maxi mum for the of fense char g ed . Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); Un ite d S

tat es v . Cr owe ll , 493 F.3d 744, 749 ( 6th Cir. 2007). I n the p re s ent case, Rog ers does not argue that the di strict court incr ease d his sentence bey ond the statutory maxi mum for being a fe lon in possession of a firea rm. He inst ead argues t hat t he cour t violated his Si x th Amendment ri g ht t o a tr ia l by jur y wh e n it fo un d f a c ts b y a prep on dera nce of

the e vid e nc e tha

t in c re a se d h is
se nte nc e be y on d th e c on du c t to wh ic h h e adm it te d. Al tho ug h Ro g e rs a c kn ow le dg e s th a t Sixth Circuit case law allows the c ourt to make such fac tual finding s, he asks us to re consider that positi on. This panel clear ly has no authority to do so. See Salmi v

. Sec’ y of H ealth & Human Serv

. , 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that a lat er Si x th Circuit panel may not overrule the dec ision of a prior panel unless a subsequent decision of the S upreme Court require s modification of the e arlier decision or this court de cides the ne w ca se en ba nc). Although the Supreme Court has y et to weig h in on the constit u t i o n al i t y of the preponde ranc e-of

-the-e vidence s tandar d for f actf inding r eg ardingsentenc ing e nhance ments, the
case law in this circ uit is unambiguous. In United States v. Gate s , 461 F.3d 703, 708 (6th Cir. 2006), fo r exampl e , this c ourt ma de c le ar that “us ing a pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e sta

nd ard po st- Booke r does not violate . . . the Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by jury .” See also United States v . Booke r ,5

5 4 3 U. S
. 2 2 0 , 2 3 2 -3 3 (2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at a s en t en ci n g co u rt i s au t h o ri z edt o m ak e f ac tu al fi n d i n gs by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e in ord er to a ppropriate ly

deter mine the advisory

sentenc ing rang e under

the Guidelines). Moreove r, this circuit re cently held that there is no Si x th Amendment v i o l at i o n wher e a district court applies a

cross-ref er ence to a cr ime not char g ed in the indictment base d upon the preponde ranc e-of

-the-e vidence standard. United States v. Birka , 487 F.3d 450, 454

- 5 7 , 4 59 (6th Cir. 2007) (a pply i n g a cr oss-ref

ere nce f or kidnaping to a cha

rg e of usinga telephone to ext ort money in e xch a ng e f

o r t h e r e l e a s e o f a k i dn a

p e d p e r s o n )

. B e c a

u s e S i xth C i r c u i t a

u t h o r i t y i s c o n t r ary

to Rog e r s ’ s a s s e rt i o n t h a t j u d i c i a l f a c t f i n d i n g a t s e n t e n c i n g b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f t h e e v ide nc e is
un c on sti tut ion a l, w e re

je c t hi s argume nt. B. The di strict

court’ s calculation of

Roger s’s sentence Rog e rs a sse rt s in the a lte rn a tiv e that eve n if the pr e po nd e ra nc e -o f- the -e vid e nc e sta

nd ard is constitutional, there wa s inadequate evidenc e to support the district cour t’s finding that he had the int e nt r e qu ir e d f

or fi rs t- de g re e mur de r u

nd e r t he Un ite d St a te s Co de

. He argue s that in lig ht o f t his
err or, his sentenc e is unrea sonable be cause the district court miscalc ulated his Guidelines ra ng e. 1. Stan dard of rev iew A deter mination of criminal responsibility is a mix ed question of law and fac t that w e re view de novo. United States v. W hited , 473 F.3d 296, 297 (6th Cir. 2006). Fa cts employ ed by the district
c ourt to fi nd c ri min a l re sp on sib ili ty , how e ve r, wi ll n ot b e se t a sid e un le ss c le arl y e rr on e ou s. United States v. Katzopoulos , 437 F.3d 569, 574 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Although w e re view the district cour t’s application of the Guidelines de novo, United States v. Hic ks , 4 F.3d 1358, 1361 ( 6th Cir. 1993), the ultimate sentence is reviewe d for r easona bleness, which ha s both a p ro cedural and a substantive component. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 96 (2 00 7) ; United States v. Thomas , 498 F.3d 336, 339 (6th Cir. 2007).6

The gove rnment arg ues t hat, because Rog ers’ s attorney failed to objec t to the district court’s fa c tua l f ind ingthat Ro g e rs ’s a c tio ns c on sti tut e d atte mpt e d f ir st- de g re e mur de r, thi s co ur t sh ou ld apply the plain-e rror

standard r ather

than the de nov o s t an d ar d of re view. See U nited States v. M c Cr e a r y - R e ed , 4 7 5 F.3d 718, 721 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (holding that when a de fenda nt fails to object to ane r r o r o f th e c o u rt, th is c o u rt r e v ie w s th e is s u e u n d e r th e p la in

- e r

r o r s ta n d ar d )

. Wh en questioned about the nature of he r objec tions, however, Rog ers’ s attorney made c lear that she wa s

“ a lle g ingto t

he c ourt that [th e fa c ts rel ate d to the a tte mpt e d mu rd e r w e re ] ir

re le va nt t o th is
se nte nc ingpr oc e e din g ” un de r t he Sixth A me ndme nt a

nd that su c h c ondu ct sh ou ld not be us e d to incre ase Rog ers’ s sentence . As such, Rog ers’ s attorney eff ectively objected to the district court’s use of the c ross-re fer ence provision of t he Guidelines, and we will revie w t hat aspect of the district court’s de cision de novo. See H icks , 4.F.3d at 1361. 2. Sufficiency of

the evidence

for the district court ’s finding of attem pted m urder Ap pli c a tio n No te 1 to Gu ide lin e § 2A2 .1 defi nes fi rst- de g re e mur de r a s “ c on du c t that, i f
com mi tt ed w ith in t

he sp e c ia l ma

ri tim e and

te rr ito ri a l juri sd ic tio n o f t he Un ite d St a te s, wo uld constitute first deg ree murder unde r 18 U.S.C. § 1111.” Pursuant to § 1111(a) , “[e]very mur der perp e tr a te d b y p o is o n , ly in g in w a it , o r an y o th e r k in d o f w il lf u l, d e li b e r a te , ma li cious, and preme ditated killing

. . . is murde r in the first deg ree .” The question befor e us then, is whethe r the dis tr ic t c ourt

c le arl y e rr e d in fi nd ingby

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that Ro g e rs a tte mpt e d to murder Coates with premeditation. As discussed above , the g overnme nt’s proof supportinga g reater Guide lines rang e nee d be shown only

by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Un ite d S

tat es v . W att s , 519 U.S. 148, 156 (1997); United States v. Gate

s , 461 F.3d 703, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Even if the district c ourt does not make detailed findings as to supporting fac ts, we may look to the record to deter mine whether

the dec ision7

was c lear ly

err oneous. United States v. Miller , 161 F.3d 977, 984 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that an appellate court “may revie w the rec ord befor e [i t] to determine w hether or not clea

r er ror e x ists”);

see also U

nited Stat es v. W

a shington , 127 F.3d 510, 515 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (re viewing the trial transcr ipt to determine the de fenda nt’s role in commission of the offe nse). A r e vie w o f the re c or d in the pr e se nt ca se de mon str a te s tha t the dis tr ic t court did no t c le arl y
err in finding that Roge rs’s ac tions constitut ed a willful and premeditated attempt to m urder Coates without just ification. Rog ers use d two firea rms to shoot Coates m ultiple times at close ra ng e. Af ter he shot Coates the fir st tim e, Rog ers walked out of the apar tment, stood over Coates, and f ired thre e more shots into his body . When Scott attempted to inter vene, Roge rs shot Scott in the hand and then returne d to targ eting Coates. And wh en b y s t an d ers drag g ed Coates to a c ar to take him to the hospital, Roger s continued his violent assault by shooting at Coates, the by standers, and the c ar e ven
as it dr ove awa

y . This c ourse of conduct more than supports the finding that Roge rs’ s ac t i ons constituted attempted first-de g ree murder. Mo re ov e r, c a se law in this c ir c uit and oth e rs de mon str a te s th a t c ourt s h a ve a pp lie d th e c ro ssre fe re nc e fo r a ssa

ult wi th inte nt t o c omm it f ir st- de g re e mur de r u

nd e r G uid e lin e s § 2A 2. 1( a ) t o simil ar, a nd in some instances less eg reg ious, conduct. See U nited States v. Mc

Daniel , 165 F.3d 29, 19 98 WL66 11 06 , * 2, 5 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 8) (c ro ss- re fe re nc ingto § 2A 2. 1( a ) aft er fi nd ing that a de fe nd ant w ho fi re d s ix sho ts at an o ff ic e r’ s le g wi thi n 1 0 s e c on ds wa s atte mpt ing to c omm it f ir stde g re e mur de r) ; United States v. Vaught , 133 F . App ’x 22 9, 23 3- 34 , 2 00 5 WL 12 85 64 4, *3 -4 (6 th Cir. 2005) (af

firming a district c ourt’s application of § 2A2.1(a ) wher e the a defe ndant was c arr y ing a g un near

his sist er’ s apar

tment a fter making a threat to kill her, e ven thoug h the def endant ne ver fired the wea

pon); United States v. Dre w , 200 F.3d 871, 879 (D.C. C ir. 2000) (a pply ing § 2A 2.1(a) wher e the de fenda

nt pointed a g un at t he victim’s hea d but did not fire); United States v. W ilson , 992 F.2d 156, 158 ( 8th Cir. 1 993) (a ffirming a cr oss-ref ere nce pur suant to § 2A2.1(a) (1) whe re the8

defe ndant fire d a shotg un out of a ve hicle towar d a g roup of pe ople and hit a by stander) . The district court he re did n o t cl ea rl y err when it found by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that Rog ers took sufficie ntly

preme ditated ac tions to constit ute attempted f irst-deg ree murder u

n d e r 1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 111. C. The di strict

court’ s app lication of

the G uid elines I n light of the district court’s finding s, it did not err in f ollowing Guidelines § 2A2, which le d the c ourt to a dju st Rog e rs ’s ba se of fe ns e le ve l to 33
. Rog e rs ra ise s no oth e r cha ll enges t o his sentenc e. We there fore conclude that his sentence is a rea sonable one

. III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.