FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 5, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14762 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -004 03 -C R -02-C A P -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D E A N T E A N T W O N G E O R G E , a .k .a . D , a .k .a . D e e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l5, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Georg e wa s a prohibited person beca use he had a prior f

elony conviction and be causehe 1 was not a licensed fire arms dealer. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.3); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n). 2 D e a n te A n tw o n G e o r g e ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e o f 7 0 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t, i m pos e d f

ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e af orpos s e s s i on of

s t ol e n f i r e a rm s , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (

j) . A f te rath o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f irm . I . B a c kgr ound G e o r g e w a s c h a r g e d in 4 c o u n ts o f a7 - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t w ith m u ltip le c o d e f e n d a n ts in c o n n e c tio n w ith r o b b e r ie s o f lic e n s e d f

ir e a rm s d e a le r s . C o u n t 4 , to w hi c h G e or ge l a t e rpl e a de d gui l ty , c ha r ge d G e or ge a nd othe r s w i th pos s e s s i ng s to le n f ir e a rm s , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (

j) . A tthe c ha nge - of

- pl e ahe a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntpr of f e r e d tha ti tc oul d pr ove thatG eorge part i ci pat ed i n tw o rob beri es of fi re arm s dea l er s, i n o ne ca se ac t i ng as al o o k o u t . Th e r o b b e r i e s n e tt e d mo r e th a n 9 0 g u n s , i n c l u d i n g ma c h i n e g u n s , s o me of w hi ch w er e keptby G eorge and hi s c od ef endant s. G eorge knew the gu ns w er e st ol en w hen h e t oo k p osse ss i on of them . G eorge expl ai ned h i s part i ci pat i on as that o f lo o k o u t in th e s e c o n d r o b b e ry , c la im in g th a t h e h a d n o t w a n te d to p a rtic ip a te a n d d id n o t w a n t th e g u n s , b u t th a t h e w a n te d m o n e y . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s i gni ng aba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

20 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( B ) be c aus e one f i r e a rm s t ol e n w a s am a c hi ne gun a nd G e or ge w a s apr ohi bi t e d pe r s on. T he 13

pr oba t i on of

f i c e rthe n a dde d 6 l e ve l s f orthe num be rof

w e apons i nvol ve d, § 2 K 2 . 1 (b )(1 )(C ), an d 2 l ev el s b ecau se th e o ffen se i n v o l v ed st o l en fi rearm s, § 2 K 2. 1(b)(4). W i th a re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty, the adj ust ed of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 26, a nd the r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 70 t o 87 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. G eorge obj ec t ed, i nt eral i a, t o (1) the base offe nse l evel , because the l evel ov er st at ed hi s i nv ol vem entand h e had no kn ow l edge of the m ac hi ne gu n; (2) an e n h a n c e m e n t f

o rs to le n f

ir e a rm s , b e c au s e it c o n s titu te d d o u b le c o u n tin g , a s h is ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l t ook the na tur e of the f i r e a rm s i nt o c ons i de r a t i on; a nd ( 3) the fa i l ure t o rec om m end a reduct i on for m i ni m al rol e i n the offens e, as he on l y a ct ed a s lo o k o u t in o n e o f

th e r o b b e r ie s . A tsen t en ci n g , th e co u rto v erru l ed th e o b j ect i o n s, fi n d i n g th at(1 ) th e b ase of f e ns e l e ve l gui de l i ne w a s s tr i c tl i abi l i ty , the s t or e tha tw a s r obbe d ha d as i gn in d ic a tin g th a t it s o ld m a c h in e g u n s , a n d m a c h in e g u n s p o s e d ad a n g e r o u s th r e a t to the c om m uni ty ; ( 2) the gui de l i ne s c om m e nt a ry w a s c l e a rtha tthe e nha nc e m e ntf or as t ol e n w e apon appl i e d be c aus e G e or ge w a s apr ohi bi t e d pe r s on; a nd ( 3) G e or ge di d notha ve am i ni m a l r ol e be c aus e he a c t e d a s l ookout , he pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the offe nse f or m on ey , and h e gave confl i ct i ng st ori es t o p ol i ce . T he courtthen consi dere d the se nt enci ng fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , and i m po se d a se nt enceUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 4 o f 7 0 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t w ith c r e d it f o rtim e s e rv e d . G e o r g e n o w ap p e a ls . II. S en t en ci n g Issu es A ft erB oo ker, al tho ug h the gu i del i nes are no l on ger m andat ory, the di stri ct 2 c o u rti s s t i l l r e q u i r e d t o c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , a n d we r e v i e w a de f e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 427 F . 3d 881, 892 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 1447 ( 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1244 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 40 7F . 3d 11 74 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of a defe nd ant ’ s r ol e i n the offens e i s afi nd i ng of fa ctt o b e r evi ew ed on l y f or cl ear e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr ora nd i t s appl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s i s r e vi e w e d de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c G ui nne s s , 451 F . 3d 1302, 13 04 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). G eorge bear s the bu rden of show i ng thathi s s ent ence w as u n r e a s o n ab le . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) .

A . M i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on G eorge fi rs tar gu es thatthe courterre d b y denyi ng hi s r equestfor a re du ct i on for hi s m i ni m al or m i no r r ol e i n the offens e bec ause hi s c ul pabi l i ty w as l e s s tha n tha tof

hi s c ode f

e nda nt s , he l a c ke d know l e dge of the othe rr obbe r i e s a nd5

the di s pos i t i on of

the guns , a nd he c oul d notha ve r e m ove d hi m s e l f f r om the s c h e m e w ith o u t g r e a t d if f ic u lty . H e f

u rth e rc h a lle n g e s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu r e to p r e s e n t w itn e s s e s w h o c o u ld h a v e te s tif ie d to h is in v o lv e m e n t. T he gui de l i ne s pr ovi de f orr e duc t i ons i n the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l i f

the de f e nda ntpl a y e d am i ni m a l orm i norr ol e i n the of f e ns e . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2 ( “ I f the d efen d an tw as a m i n i m al p art i ci p an ti n an y cri m i n al act i v i ty, d ecrease b y 4 l ev el s. . . . If th e d efen d an tw as a m i n o r p art i ci p an ti n an y cri m i n al act i v i ty, decr ea se by 2 l evel s. . . . ”) . A cc ordi ng t o the com m ent ary, the re du ct i on for a m in im a l p a rtic ip a n t, i s i n t en d ed t o co v er d efen d an t s w h o are p l ai n l y am o n g th e l east c u lp ab le o f

th o s e in v o lv e d in th e c o n d u c t o f ag r o u p . U n d e rth is pr ovi s i on, the de f

e ndant ’ s l a c k of

know l e dge orunde r s t a ndi ng of the s c o p e a n d s tru c tu r e o f

th e e n te rp r is e a n d o f

th e a c tiv itie s o f

o th e r s is i ndi c a t i ve of

ar ol e a s m i ni m a l pa rt i c i pa nt . I ti s i nt e nde d tha tthe do w nw ar d adj ustm entfor am i ni m al part i ci pantw i l l be used i n freq u en t l y. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1 . 2 , co m m en t . (n . 4 ). T h e red u ct i o n fo r a m i n o r ro l e i n th e o ffen se ap p l i es t o a d efen d an t“ w h o i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o sto th er p art i ci p an t s, b u tw h o se r ol e c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l . ” I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 5) . I n de t e rm i ni ng the defe nd ant ’ s r ol e i n the offens e, the courtm ayconsi der a ny re l evantcond uct a ttr i but abl e t o the de f

e nda nt . D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t942. T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng the m i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n the of f e ns e by apr e ponde r a nc e of the6

e v id e n c e . I d . a t 9 3 9 . H er e, there i s no cl ear e rr or i n the court ’ s dec i si on t o d eny r educt i on s bas ed on m i ni m a l orm i norr ol e i n the of f e ns e . F i r s t , G e or ge w a s note nt i t l e d t o a red u ct i o n fo r h i s m i n i m al ro l e b ecau se h e co u l d n o tsh o w th ath e w as th e l east cul pabl e gi ven h i s r ol e a s the l oo ko utand i n the other c ou nt s f or w hi ch G eorge w as n o t co n v icted . N o tab ly, th e g o v er n m en t i n clu d ed fa cts r elated to G eo rg e’s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the pr i orr obbe r i e s a tthe c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, a nd G e or ge adm i tt ed the fa ct s w er e c orre ct . A dd i t i on al l y, the courtcoul d h ave c on si dere d the s e othe rof

f e ns e s a s e vi de nc e of

hi s know l e dge of

the ove r a l l s c he m e . A l though G eorge s t at ed thathe di d n otw antt o p art i ci pat e, the courtcoul d h ave c on cl ud ed ba s e d on the e vi de nc e tha tG e or ge kne w of the pl a ns . G e or ge i ndi c a t e d tha the c hos e t o pa rt i c i pa t e i n the hope s tha the w oul d r e c e i ve m one y f orhi s i nvol ve m e nt a nd, w he n c onf

r ont e d by pol i c e , G e or ge pr of f e r e d s e ve r a l di f

f e r e nts t or i e s about hi s i nv ol vem ent . In l i gh tof thi s, and the fa ctthatrol e r educt i on s are t o b e gi ven i n f r e q u e n t l y , Ge o r g e c a n n o ts h o w th a th e wa s a m o n g th e l e a s tc u l p ab l e . U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 4). F urthe rm or e , G e or ge c a nnots how tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o ar e duc t i on f or m in o rr o le in th e o f

f e n s e . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e rth e r e d u c tio n is w a rr a n te d , a d i stri ctco u rt“ sh o u l d b e i n fo rm ed b y tw o p ri n ci p l es d i scern ed fro m th e G u i d el i n es:7

f ir s t, th e d e f

e n d a n t’s r o le in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] h a s b e e n h e ld ac coun t abl e a tse nt enci ng , and, se cond , [hi s] rol e a s c om pare d t o thatof other pa rt i c i pa nt s i n [ hi s ] r e l e va ntc onduc t . ” D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t940. “ O nl y i f the de f e nda ntc a n e s t abl i s h tha t[ he ] pl a y e d ar e l a t i ve l y m i norr ol e i n the c onduc tf or w hi ch [he] has a l re ady bee n h el d acc ou nt abl e - no ta m i no r r ol e i n any l ar ger c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y - s houl d the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a ntadow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf or m in o rr o le in th e o f

f e n s e .” I d . a t 9 4 4 . H e r e , G e o r g e w a s h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o rh is ow n con du ct , and h e c anno tshow thathi s part i ci pat i on w as m i no r. F i na l l y , G e or ge m i s unde r s t a nds hi s bur de n w he n he c ha l l e nge s the gove rnm e nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o puton e vi de nc e of hi s know l e dge . I ti s the de f e nda ntw ho bear s the bu rden of show i ng hi s e nt i t l em entt o a re du ct i on , and G eorge has no tm et hi s bur de n. B. Se c t i o n 2 K 2 . 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) G eorge nextar gu es thatthe si x-l evel enhancem entbecause the fi re arm in v o lv e d w a s am a c h in e g u n o v e r s ta te s th e s e r io u s n e s s o f h is o f f e n s e . H e a s s e rts th a t h e h a d n o k n o w le d g e th a t am a c h in e g u n w a s ta k e n , a n d h e d id n o t in te n d to t ake am ac hi ne gu n. H e not es thatthe gu n i nv ol ved w as a W orl d W arII ant i qu e, w hi c h w a s ve ry he a vy a nd c um be r s om e t o us e , the r e by m a ki ng i tl e s s da nge r ous th a n a n o r d in a ry m a c h in e g u n .These f actor s include: “(1)the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 3 c ha rac teri sti c s o f t

hede fendant; (2 ) t

he ne e d for the sentenc e imp os e d- (A) to re fl e c t th eseri ou sn e ss of the o ffen se, t o pro mo te r esp ectfor th e law, andto pro vi de j us t p un is hm entfor th e off ens e; ( B) to afford adequa

te deter renc e to criminal conduct; (C) t o protec t the public from f urther crimes of the def endant; and (D) to provide thedefendant with neede d educational or vocational trai n i n g, medical c are , or other corre ct i o n al treatment in the most effective manner ; [ and] (3) the kinds of sentenc es available[.] ” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1)- (3). “Although sentencing courts mus t be guided by these factors, nothingin Booker or e lsewhere re quires the district cour t t o s t at e o n the re cord that it has expl icitly considere d each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss e ach of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Thomas, 446 F .3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (c itation and quotation omitt ed). 8 N o t ab l y, G eo rg e d o es n o tco u ch h i s arg u m en ti n t erm s o f reaso n ab l en ess, butr a the rs e e m s t o c ha l l e nge the appl i c a t i on of § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( b) . W e c onc l ude thatthe di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y app l i ed the gu i del i ne t o G eorge’ s off ense . U nd er § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( b) , aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

20 appl i e s i f

the of f e ns e i nvol ve d a m a c hi ne gun a nd the de f e nda ntw a s apr ohi bi t e d pe r s on, tha ti s , he ha d apr i or f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n a n d h e wa s n o tal i c e n s e d f i r e a rm s d e a l e r . S e e U. S . S . G. § 2 K 2. 1(a) (4)( B ); § 2 K 2. 1, com m ent . (n. 3); se e a l so 26 U . S . C . § 5 84 5(a) (i dent i fy i ng m ac hi ne gu ns as on e of the w eapo ns t o w hi ch the gu i del i ne appl i es ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) , ( n ) ( d e f in in g “p r o h ib ite d p e r s o n ” ) . M o r e o v e r , th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d w a s r e a s o n ab le . T h e c o u rt c o rr e c tly de t e rm i ne d the a dvi s ory r a nge pr e s c r i be d by the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd consi dere d the fa ct ors e nu m er at ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 3 7 8 6 . H e r e , th e c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e p r io rr e c o r d a n d th e o f f e n s e s c o m m itte d . A lth o u g h G e o r g e p le a d e d g u ilty to o n ly o n e c o u n t, th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o f f e r e d th a t it9

coul d p rove G eorge’ s i nv ol vem enti n tw o rob beri es , and the go vernm entno t ed that s o m e o f th e g u n s h a d b e e n s o ld a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d r e ta in e d o th e rg u n s . G eo rg e a d m itted th e p ro ff erw as co rr ec t. In li g h t o f th es e f ac ts, th e c o u rt’s se nt ence , w hi ch fe l l atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes r ange, w as re as on abl e. S ee T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 .

C . D oubl e C ount i ng F in a lly , G e o r g e a r g u e s th a t th e c o u rt e n g a g e d in d o u b le c o u n tin g w h e n it e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on as t ol e n w e apon w he n hi s c onvi c t i on a l r e a dy t ook th e s to le n w e ap o n in to a c c o u n t. H e u r g e s th is c o u rt to r e c o n s id e rits d e c is io n in U ni t ed S t at es v. A dam s, 32 9 F . 3d 80 2 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ), w hi ch re ac hed the contrary c o n c lu s io n . U nd erU . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1, the base offe nse l evel for c on vi ct i on s und er § 9 22 (j ) i s 20 i f the fi re arm i nv ol ved w as a f i re arm l i st ed i n 2 6 U . S . C . § 5 84 5(a) , w hi c h i nc l ude s m a c hi ne guns , a nd the de f e nda ntw a s apr ohi bi t e d pe r s on a tthe t i m e of the offens e. U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(a) (4). T hi s off ense l evel i s then i ncre as ed by four l evel s i f the fi re arm w as st ol en. U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(b)(4). T he com m ent ary to th e g u id elin es ex p lain s th at th e e n h an ce m en t w o u ldn o t ap p ly if th e d ef en d an t’ s b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l a r o s e u n d e rs u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 7 ) . U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 , c o m m e n t. (n. 9).10

H er e, G eorge’ s bas e off ense l evel ar ose und er§ 2 K 2. 1(a) (4), and there fore , the com m ent ary does notproh i bi tthe enhancem entfor s t ol en fi re arm s. M oreover, w e a r e bound by thi s c ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n A da m s , w hi c h c ons i de r e d the e nha nc e m e ntf

ors t ol e n f

i r e a rm s unde r§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) a nd c onc l ude d tha ti tdi d not re sul ti n d ou bl e c ou nt i ng . U ni t ed S t at es v. D un can, 40 0 F . 3d 12 97 , 13 05 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng thata panel of thi s c ou rti s bou nd by a dec i si on of a pri or panel unl e s s the de c i s i on ha s be e n ove rrul e d by thi s c ourts i tt i ng e n ba nc orby the S u p r e m e C o u rt) . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M.