## 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 1- 35 75

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

*
Pl ai nt iff - 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 Ark an sa s. Is ai ah Mah on e, *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 11 , 20 12
Fi le d: Aug us t 2 0, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Is ai ah Mah on e p le ad ed gu il ty to b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm ; t he

go ve rn m en t di sm is se d a ch arg e of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m ari juan a. At

se nt en ci ng , ov erru li ng Mah on e’s ob jecti on s, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th ree fir earm 1

en ha nc em en ts an d den ie d an accep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on , res ul ti ng in an
ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge ab ov e th e st at u t or y m ax im um te rm of 12 0

mon th s in pr is on

. The co ur t im po se d th e st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce. M a h o n e

ap pe al s th e se nt en ce, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s were pr oc ed ur al gu id el in es

The Hon or ab le Ji m

m Larry Hen dr en , Uni te d St at e s D i s t r ic t Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.erro rs

. Rev ie win g th es e fact -in te ns iv e is su es fo r cl ear erro r, we affi rm

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Au lt , 44 6 F .3d 82 1, 8 24 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

I. Th e Fir ea rm Enha ncements

W e su m m ari ze th e rel ev an t fact s as reci te d in pa rag rap hs of th e pr e s e n t e n ce

in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) to whi ch Mah on e di d no t ob ject. Afte r a se rie s of

co nt ro ll ed m ari

juan a an d ecs ta sy bu y s, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers co nd uc te d warra nt

se arch e s a t Apa rtments 11 an d 12 of a Fayette vi ll e, Ark an sa s, ap art m en t co m pl ex

. Apa rtment 11 was le as ed to Mah on e’s si st er’s; Mah o n e was li st ed as th e ut il it ie s

acco un t ho ld er. W he n se arch ed

, th e ap art m en t was em pt y

. Offi cers se iz ed 44 gr am s

of m ari juan a an d se ve ral it em s co ns i s t e n t wit h dr ug tra ffi ck in g. The le ss ee of
Apa rtment 12 li st ed Mah o n e a s hi s em pl oyer. Exe cu ti ng th e warra nt

, of fic ers
br each ed a fo rti fie d do or an d f ou nd Mah on e an d two ot he rs in si de

. The en su in g

se arch y ie ld ed two st ol en fir earm s, a Glo ck se m i-a ut om at ic pi st o l an d a Sm it h an d

W es so n as sa ul t rif

le ; 29 6 gr am s of m ari

juan a an d dr ug pa rap he rn al ia ; an d th ree cel l
ph on es

. A warra nt se arch of th e cel l ph on es pr od uc ed e v i d e n c e th at Mah on e
id en ti fie d Apa rtment 12 as hi s res id en ce an d a vi de o sh owi ng hi m sh oo ti ng a Glo ck

ha nd gu n at a fir in g ran ge fo ur m on th s earl ie r. Mah on e pl ead ed gu il ty to un la wfu l

po ss es si on of t he fir earm sh own in th at vi de o.

Und er th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es , t he ba se of fen se le ve l fo r Mah on e’s fel on -in

po ss es si on of

fen se is 20

, U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), su bjec t to in crea se s fo r sp eci fic

of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs go ve rn ed by th e Gui de li ne s’ rel ev an t co nd uc t pr in ci pl es

. The

rel ev an t co nd uc t gu id el in e pr ov id es th at

, “s o l e l y w i th res pe ct to of fen se s

. . . fo r
whi ch § 3D1 .2(d ) wou ld req ui re gr ou pi ng of m ul t i p le co un ts ,” rel ev an t co nd uc t

in cl ud es “ al l act s an d om is si on s

. . . th at were pa rt of th e sa m e co ur se of co nd uc t

. . .

as th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on .” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 (a)( 2)

. Sect io n 3D1 .2(d ) in cl ud es

fir earm off en se s wh os e b as e o ffen se lev el is go ve rn ed by § 2K2 .1. App lying th es e

pr in ci pl es , th e PSR reco m m en de d th at Mah on e “ be he ld acco un ta bl e fo r al l of th e

-2

-fir earm s in vo lv ed in th e in st an t of fen se (two of whi ch were st ol en ), no t jus t th e

fir earm to whi ch he pl ed gu il ty.” Acco rd in gl y , th e PSR rec om m en de d a two -le ve l

in crea se fo r th ree fir earm s, § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(A); a two -le ve l in crea se fo r st ol en fir earm s, § 2K2 .1( b) (4 )(A); an d a fo ur -le ve l in crea se fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm in co nn ect io n
wit h an ot he r fel on y of

fen se , § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ). At se nt en ci ng, the distr ic t co ur t ov erru le d

Mah on e’s ob

jecti on s t o t he se en ha nc em en ts

.

On ap pe al

, Mah on e arg u e s t h a t th e two fir earm s fo un d du rin g th e warra nt

se arch of Apa rtment 12 wer e no t rel ev an t co nd uc t fo r th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on
be cau se ren ti ng a weap on at a fir in g ran ge “ is no t co nn ect ed or si m il ar to be in g in an

ap art m en t whe re dr ug s an d st ol en fir earm s are lo cat ed .” W e di sa gr ee. At le as t fo ur

of ou r si st er ci rcu it s ha ve co nc lu de d th at a de fen da nt ’s pa tt ern of un l a w f u l ly

po ss es si ng m

ul ti pl e fir earm s ov er th e co ur se of se ve ral m on th s co ns ti tu te s “ th e sa m e

co ur se of co nd uc t” fo r rel ev an t co nd uc t pu rp os es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bru m m et t,

35 5 F.3 d 34 3, 34 5 (5 th Ci r. 20 03 ), an d cas es di sc us se d. Thi s co nc lu si on is co ns is te nt

wit h ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Co le

, 52 5 F.3 d 65 6, 65 9- 60 (8 t h Ci r. 20 08 ),

whe re we up he ld en ha nc em en ts ba se d on two fir earm s, on e of whi ch was st ol en , th at

were di sc ov ered at th e sa m e ti m e as t h e “ sa wed -o ff” sh ot gu n th at was th e ba si s fo r

th e fai lu re-t o- reg is te r of

fen se of c on vi ct io n.

“Fa ct or s th at are ap pr op ria te to th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er of fen s e s a r e

su ffi ci en tl y co nn ect ed or rel a t e d t o e a c h ot he r to be co ns id ered as pa rt of th e sa m e

co ur se of co nd uc t in cl ud e th e de gr ee of si m il ari ty of th e of fen se s, th e r e gu la rit y (rep et it io ns ) of th e of

fen se s, an d th e ti m e in te rv al be twee n t he off en se s.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B 1.3 , c om m en t. (n .9(B )). Here, th e Offen se Co nd uc t p a r a g r a ph s of th e PSR, to

whi ch Mah on e di d no t ob ject, co nt ai ne d su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at th e th ree fir earm s

at is s u e w e r e pa rt of a si ng le co ur se of co nd uc t: in fo rm an ts who m ad e co nt ro ll ed

bu y s rep or te d gu ns be in g ke pt in th e ap art m en ts ; a reg ul ar m ari juan a an d ecs ta sy

cu st om er of Mah on e to ld of fic ers th at Mah on e co ll ect ed fir earm s an d tra de d th em fo r
dr ug s; in a cel l ph on e te xt m es sa ge , Mah on e was as ke d, “ Can I co m e ge t th at li l 38 0,”

-3

-by th e pe rp et rat or of an arm ed ro bb ery th at sa m e ni gh t; an d th e cel l ph on e co nt ai ne d

pi ct ur es of ot he r fir ea r ms a s w e l l a s th e vi de o of Mah on e sh oo ti ng a ha nd gu n at a

fir in g ran ge le ss th an fo ur m on th s b e fo re of fic ers di sc ov ered two fir earm s in
Apa rtment 12

. On t h i s r e c o r d, th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s th at Mah on e il le ga ll y

po ss es se d t hr ee fi rear m s, t wo o f whi ch were s to le n, wer e n ot cle arl y erro ne ou s.

Mah on e ob

jects to th e th ird en ha nc em en t -- po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m i n

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se -- be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce th e fir earm

a t t he fir in g ran ge was in vo lv ed in an y ot he r fel on y

. It is do ub tl es s tru e t h a t t h e

ren te d fir in g- ran ge ha nd gu n was no t di rect ly us ed to faci li ta te an ot he r fel on y. Bu t

Mah on e’s rel ev an t co nd uc t in cl ud ed th e two fir earm s th at were fo un d in Apa rtment

12 al on g wit h a su bs ta nt ia l qu an ti ty of m ari juan a an d ot he r ev id en ce of dr ug

tra ffi ck in g. If Mah on e ha d be en co nv ic te d o f bo th off en se s i ni ti al ly charg ed , fel on

in po ss es si on an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st ri b u t e mar iju an a, th ere can be no
do ub t th es e two weap on s wou ld warra nt th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) en ha nc em en t. See Uni te d

St at es v. W hi ti ng , 52 2 F.3 d 84 5, 85 0 ( 2 0 0 8 )

. Mah on e wou ld ha ve us si de st ep th is

r e a li ty by arg ui ng (wit ho ut ci ta ti on to au th or it y ) th at “ th e di sm is se d [m ari ju a n a
ch arg e] i s n ot rel ev an t co nd uc t.” In ge ne ral , r el ev an t co nd uc t in cl ud es “ un ch arg ed

co nd uc t [th at ] is pa r t o f th e sa m e co ur se of co nd uc t as th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on .”

Aul t, 44 6 F.3 d at 82 3. Giv en th e “ well -k no wn te nd en cy of dr ug cri m in al s to us e

f i r e a rm s in co nn ect io n wit h th ei r dr ug act iv it ie s,” Uni te d St at es v. Pero ces ki

, 52 0

F.3 d 88 6, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at th e

sa me c o u r se of co nd uc t fo r Mah on e’s of fen se of co nv ic ti on in cl ud ed hi s cl os el y

in te rrel at ed dru g t raff

ic ki ng an d c on ti nu in g i ll eg al po ss es si on of f ire arm s.

II . Accept an ce o f Res po ns ib il ity

The PSR no te d th at Mah on e de ni ed li vi ng at Apa rtment 1 2 a nd de ni ed

kn owl ed ge of th e fir earm s an d dr ug s fo un d in th e ap art m en t, de sp it e su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce to th e co nt rary. The PSR no ne t h el es s reco m m en de d, wit h “ so m e

-4

-res erv at io ns ,” a two -le ve l red u c ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y be cau se he

ad m it te d th e of

fen se of co nv ic ti on

. Howev er, in res po nd in g to Mah on e’s ob jecti on s

to th e reco m

m en de d fir earm en ha nc em en ts

, th e Pro ba ti on Offi cer op in ed th at

, if th e

co ur t fin ds th e rel ev an t co nd u c t rep or te d in th e PSR to be tru e, an d if Mah on e

“ co nt in ue s to de ny o r c o n t e s t hi s in vo lv em en t,” he wou ld be “ act in g in a m an ne r

in co ns i s t e n t w it h acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y .” At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t

no te d th at th e G u i d e li ne s pr ov id e fo r a red uc ti on on ly if th e de fen da nt “ cl earl y
de m on st rat es acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y .” U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1(a ). The co ur t de ni ed

Mah on e a t wo- le ve l re du ct io n, ex pl ai ni ng :

I th in k al l th e de fen da nt di d was en te r a pl ea of gu il ty an d ad m it wha t he

ne ed ed t o a d mi t t o ge t hi s pl ea acce pt ed an d di d no t go be y on d th at

. The n he ha s arg ue d an d tri ed to ex pl ai n [an d] de ni ed th in gs th at si m pl y

were tru e, th e co nd uc t th at ha d ta ke n pl ace pr io r to an d du rin g th e ti m e of hi s arre st

. To m e, th at do es n o t am ou nt to a cl ear de m on st rat io n of

acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

.

On ap pe al

, Mah on e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n d e n yi ng th e red uc ti on
be cau se he ob

jecte d to th e rel ev an t co nd uc t en ha nc em en ts reco m m en de d in th e PSR.

Mah on e ba se s th is co nt en ti on on th e co m m en ta ry to th e acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

g u i de li ne , whi ch st at es th at ap pr op ria te co ns id erat io ns in de te rm in in g whe th er a
de fen da nt qu al ifi es for th is red uc ti on in cl ud e:

tru th fu ll y ad m it ti ng th e co nd uc t co m pr isi ng the of

fens e(s ) of co nv ic ti on ,
an d tru th fu ll y ad m it ti ng or no t fal se ly d en yi n g a n y ad di ti on al rel ev an t

co nd uc t fo r whi ch th e de fen da nt is acco un ta bl e.

. . . A d efen da nt m ay

rem ai n si le nt in res pe ct to rel ev an t co nd u c t b e yo nd th e of fen se of

co nv ic ti on wit ho ut affe ct in g hi s ab il it y to ob ta in a red uc ti on un de r th is

su bs ec t i o n

. Howev er, a de fen da nt who fal se ly de ni es , or fri vo lo us ly

co nt es ts

, rel ev an t co nd uc t th at th e co ur t de te rm in es to be tru e ha s act ed
in a m an ne r in co ns is te nt wit h a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y

.

-5

-U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1, co m m en t. (n .1(A) ). The co m

m en ta ry fu rth er warn s, “ A de fen da nt

who en te rs a gu il ty pl ea is no t en ti tl ed to an ad jus tm en t un de r th is se ct io n as a m at te r

of rig ht .” § 3 E1.1 , com m en t. (n .3).

Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e se nt en ci ng reco rd

, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t cl earl y

err i n d en y in g a n a ccep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty redu ct io n. As t he ab ov equ ot ed ex pl an at io n m ak es c l e a r , t he co ur t pr im ari ly de ni ed Mah on e a red uc ti on
be cau se he fal se ly de ni ed rel ev an t co nd uc t t ha t was ob vi ou sl y tru e, bo th du rin g th e

Pro ba ti on Offi cer’s in te rv ie w an d ag ai n in an swe rin g th e co u r t ’s qu es ti on s at

s e n te nc in g, no t be cau se he ch al le ng ed fir earm en ha nc em en ts reco m m en de d in th e

PSR. Mah on e wou ld ha ve us fo cu s so le ly on th e co ur t’s ad di ti on al ob se rv at io n th at

th e rel ev an t co nd uc t ob

jecti on s “ bo rd er on be in g fri vo lo us .” Bu t we ne ed no t de ci de

whe th er th e ob

jecti on s were in fact fri vo lo us

. The co m m en ta ry fo cu se s bo th on fal se
de ni a l s an d fri vo lo us le ga l ch al le ng es

. Here, as th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, Mah on e’s

pe rs is te nt de ni al of ob vi ou sl y rel ev an t co nd uc t -- th at he was in vo lv ed in th e gu ns an d

dr ug s pr es en t in Apa rtment 12
-- was cl earl y fal se

. Fo r ex am pl e, on e pe rs on in th e

ap art m en t whe n th e of

fic ers arri ve d sa id sh e ov erh eard Mah on e te ll in g hi s as so ci at e

“ to rel ax ab ou t th e gu ns be cau se th e bu ll et s were el se whe re and th at he ha d flu sh ed

th e Ecs ta cy

th at was i n t he ap art m en t.”

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

.

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

-6

-