# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 33 06

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

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.

Deia go Davi s

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 6
Fil ed : J un e 3 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Deia go Dav is pl ed gu il ty to cri m in al co n t e mp t of co ur t in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. § 40 1( 3) aft er refu si ng to te st ify be fo re a gr an d jury. Afte r ap pl y in g fo ur cro ss

refe ren ces in th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 46 m on th s

im pr is on m en t. Dav is ap pe al s, argu in g th at th e di st ric t cou rt im pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e

gu id el in es . W e v acat e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.I. Ba ck gr ou nd.

On Aug us t 1, 20 11 Dav is was rid in g in th e ba ck s e a t o f a ve hi cl e th at was

st op pe d by la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers in Ced ar Rap id s, Io wa. Dur i ng th at pr oc es s,

pa ss en ge r Mar vi n Hic k s th rew a lo ad ed ha nd gu n fro m th e fro nt se at in to th e ba ck

whi ch th e of

fic ers fo un d an d la te r di sc ov ered ha d be en st ol en du rin g a ho m e bu rg la ry

. Hick s was de ta in ed on ch arg es of po ss es si on of st ol en pr op ert y , c arrying weap on s,

an d po ss es si on of a fir earm as a fel on

. Dav is pr ov id ed a st at em en t to th e po li ce, bu t

was rel eas ed wit ho ut ch arg es

.

On Octo be r 28

, 20 14 D a v i s w a s c a ll ed to te st ify be fo re a fed eral gr an d jury

whi ch was in ve st ig at in g Hick s' Aug us t 1 t r a f f i c st op

. Dav is refu se d to te st ify an d

in v o k e d h i s rig ht to co un se l. A se co nd writ was is su ed to co m pe l hi s ap pe aran ce
be fo re th e gr an d jury on N o v e mb e r 18

, 20 14

, bu t hi s co un se l in di cat ed he wou ld

as se rt hi s pr iv il eg e ag ai ns t se lf in cri m in at io n un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm e n t

. The

go ve rn m en t se cu red an or de r un de r 18 U

. S

. C

. § 60 02 req ui rin g hi m to te st ify, bu t

pr ov id in g th at hi s te st im on y wou ld no t la te r be us ed ag ai ns t hi m

. On Nov em be r 18

Dav is on ce ag ai n re fu se d t o t es ti fy be fo re t he gra nd jury de sp it e th e § 60 02 ord er.

As a res ul t of hi s no nc om pl ia nc e wit h th e or de r , D a v is was in di ct ed on on e

co un t of cri m in al co nt em

pt of co ur t, 18 U.S.C. § 40 1( 3)

, to whi ch he la te r pl ed gu il ty.

The gu id el in e fo r se nt en ci ng cri m in al co nt em pt req ui res th e ap pl ic at io n of "t he m os t

an al og ou s of

fen se gu id el in e." See U.S.S.G. §§ 2J 1.1

, 2X5 .1. The pa rti es ag ree th at

th e m os t an al og ou s he re is th e gu id el in e fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, U.S.S.G. § 2J 1.2

. Tha t gu id el in e se ts th e ba se of fen se le ve l at 14 bu t pr ov id es fo r th e ap pl ic at io n of th e

acce ss or y aft er th e fact gu id el in e (U.S.S.G. § 2 X 3.1 ) if th e "o ffen se in vo lv ed

ob st ru ct in g th e in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of a cri m in al of f e n s e

. . . [ an d] if th e

res ul ti ng of

fen se le ve l is gr eat er th an th at de te rm in ed ab ov e." U.S.S.G. § 2J 1.2 (a),
(c)( 1)

. The pr es en te nc e rep or t in di cat ed th at se ct i o n 2X3 .1 ap pl ie d to Dav is ' cas e.
Und er se ct io n 2X3 .1, th e ba se of fen se le ve l is "6 le ve ls lo wer th an th e of fen se le ve l

-2

-fo r th e un de rlyin g offe ns e." The pr es en te nc e rep or t con cl ud ed th at th e "u nd erl y in g

of fen se " was Hick s' co n v i c t i o n f o r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm si nc e

Dav is ob st ru ct ed th at pro se cu ti on

.

In cal cu la ti ng th e of

fen se le ve l fo r th e un d e r l y in g of fen se , th e co ur t m

us t
"[a ]ppl y th e ba se of

fen se le ve l plu s an y appl ic ab le sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs th at

w e r e k n own , or reas on ab ly sh ou ld ha ve be en kn own , by th e de fen da nt ." U.S. S

. G

. § 2X3 .1, ap p. no te 1. Neit he r th e pr es en te nc e rep or t no r an y ot he r do cu m en ts in th e

reco rd ex pl ai n ho w Hi c k s ' o f f e ns e le ve l was cal cu la te d, bu t we ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce

of th e fil in gs in hi s cri m in al cas e, Uni te d St at es v. Hick s, 1: 14 -cr- 00 13 4- LRR (N.D.

Io wa). See Fed

. R. Evi d. 20 1; In su la te SB, In c. v. Adv an ced Fi ni sh in g Sy s., In c., 79 7

F.3 d 5 38 , 54 3 n .4 (8 th Cir . 20 15 ).

Hick s' ba se of

fen se le ve l fo r po ss es si ng th e ha nd gu n wa s 2 0 be cau se he ha d

a pr io r fel on y fo r ei th er a cr im e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o ffen se at th e

ti m e. See U.S.S.G. § 2 K 2 .1(a )(4 )(A). The di st ric t co ur t in crea se d Hick s' of fen se
le ve l by s ix be cau se of two sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti cs un de r se ct io n 2K2 .1(b ).

He rece iv ed a two lev el in crea se be cau se th e fir earm he po ss es se d ha d be en st ol en , id

. § 2K2 .1(b )(4 )(A), an d a fo ur le ve l in crea se be cau se he ha d po ss es se d th e fir earm

"i n co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se ," na m el y th e of

fen se of carr y in g weap on s

un de r Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ), id

. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Th e pr es en te nc e rep or t th en

rep or te d a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 6 fo r th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se

.

Afte r th e pr es en te nc e rep or t de te rm in ed th at th e un de rlyin g of fen se le ve l was

26

, it cal cu la te d Davi s' offe ns e le ve l to be 20

. See U.S.S.G. § 2X3 .1. Dav is arg ue d

at se nt en ci ng th at th e pr es en te nc e rep or t im pr op erl y in crea se d Hick s' of fen se le ve l by

fo ur , cl ai m in g th at an of

fen se fo r carr y in g weap on s un de r Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ) do es

no t qu al ify as "an ot he r fel on y of fen se " un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Dav is al so

so ug ht a do wnwar d va ria nc e or de pa rtu re fro m th e se nt en ci ng gu ide lin es

. The di st ric t

co ur t re jecte d b ot h a rg um en ts an d co nc lu de d th at Davi s' b as e o ffen se lev el was 2 0.

-3

-The co ur t th en su bt ract ed th ree le ve ls fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y an d de te rm in ed

t ha t Dav is ' gu id el in es ran ge was 46 to 57 m on th s ba se d on hi s cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y of V. The co ur t s en te nc ed hi m to 46 m on th s.

Dav is ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's gu id el in es cal cu la ti on whi ch was de te rm in ed
by st art in g wit h th at of th e un de r l yi n g o ffen se , Hick s' po ss es si on of th e ha nd gu n.

Dav is arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s cal cu la ti on of th e u n d e r l yi n g ba se

of fen se le ve l an d in it s ap pl ic at io n of th e two sp eci fic of fen se en ha nc e men t s to th e

un de rlyin g o ffen se

.

II . Anal ys is

.

The d i s tri ct co ur t de te rm in ed Dav is ' of fen se le ve l un de r se ct io n 2X3 .1 by

su bt ract in g si x le ve ls fro m "t he of fen se le ve l fo r th e un d e r l yi n g o f fen se ." In

cal cu la ti ng th e of

fen se le ve l fo r th e un de rlyin g of fe n se , a co ur t ap pl ie s "t he ba se

of fen se le ve l pl us an y ap pl ic ab le sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs th at were kn own , or

reas on ab ly sh ou ld ha ve be en kn own , by th e de fen da nt ." U.S.S.G. § 2X3 .1, ap p. no te

1. Here , th e un de rlyin g offe ns e is Hick s' con vi ct io n for bei ng a fel on in po ss es si on

of a fir earm

. Dav is co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d th ree rev ers ib le erro rs

in cal cu la ti ng th e o ffen se lev el for th at off en se

.

Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t p l a i nl y erre d in fin di ng a le ve l 20 ba se

of fen se le ve l fo r th e un de rlyin g o f f e n s e

. Seco nd

, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in ad di ng fo ur le ve ls be cau se of a sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti c en ha nc em en t

fo r Hick s' po ss es si on of th e ha nd gu n in co nn ect io n wit h " a n o t he r fel on y of fen se "

un de r se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Thi rd

, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in

ad di ng two le ve ls b e c au se of a sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti c en ha nc em en t fo r th e

st ol en ha nd gu n u nd er s ect io n 2 K2.1 (b )(4 )(A).

-4

-A. The di st ri ct co urt di d no t pl ai nl y err in ca lc ul at in g a ba se of fens e le ve l

of 20 for the un derl yi ng off ens e unde r se cti on 2K 2.1 (a )(4 )(A).

Dav is arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in cal cu la ti ng a 20 ba se of fen se
le ve l fo r th e un de rlyin g of fen se

. W e rev ie w th is arg um en t fo r pl ai n erro r si nc e it was

no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 57 4 F.3 d 54 6, 54 9 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 09 ). W he n rev ie win g fo r pl ai n erro r, "we rev ers e on ly if th ere ha s b e e n ( 1 ) a n

erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 ) th at affe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s." Uni te d St at es v.

Ri ch ard so n, 53 7 F.3 d 95 1, 95 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e wil l rev ers e "i f th e erro r se rio us ly

affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Pu ck et t

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 13 5 (2 00 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
( a lt erat io n in Pu ck et t). The ap pl ic at io n of an in co rrec t gu id el in e ran ge c a n b e

su ffi c i e n t t o de m on st rat e a sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e. See Mo li na -Ma rti ne z v. Uni te d

St at es , 13 6 S . Ct. 1 33 8, 1 34 5 (2 01 6)

.

Dav is arg ue s th at th e le ve l 20 ba se of fen se was pl ai n erro r be cau se he ha d no t

k n o w n , no r sh ou ld ha ve kn own , th at Hick s co m m it te d th e of

fen se aft er he ha d

an ot he r fel on y co nv ic ti on of a cri m e of vi ol en ce or co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se

. See

U.S.S.G. §§ 2X3 .1, 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A). Thi s arg um en t is co nt rary to th e pl ai n la ng ua ge

of se ct io n 2X3 .1. App li cat io n no te 1 st at es th at th e un de rlyin g of fen se le ve l is

ca l c u l a t ed by ap pl y in g "t he ba se of fen se le ve l pl us an y ap pl ic ab le sp eci fic of fen se
ch arac te ris ti cs th at were kn own , or reas on ab ly sh ou ld h a v e be en kn own , by th e
de fen da nt ." Id

. § 2X3 .1, ap p. no te 1 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The kn owl ed ge req ui rem en t

is th us li m it ed to th e "ap pl ic ab le sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs ." See Uni te d St at es

v. Bo ok er, 18 6 F.3 d 10 04

, 10 07 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e di d no t

err i n c on cl ud in g t ha t t he ba se off en se lev el for

th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se was 2 0.

-5

-B

. T h e d i st ri ct co urt di d no t err in ap pl yi ng the se cti on 2K 2.1 (b)( 6) (B )

sp eci f i c of fens e cha ra cter is tic fo r po ss es si on of a fir ea rm in co nnec tio n w ith

"a no ther fel on y o ffen se " to the un derl yi ng off ens e.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Hick s' po ss es si on of a ha nd gu n vi ol at ed Io wa

Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ) whi ch pr oh ib it s "k no win gl y carr [y in g] or tra ns po rt[ in g] in a ve hi cl e

a pi st ol or rev ol ve r." Tha t co nc lu si on le d to a fo ur po in t sp ec i f i c o f fen se
ch arac te ris ti c en ha nc em en t to th e un de rlyin g of fen se le ve l fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm

"i n co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se ." See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Dav is

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by in crea si ng th e un de rlyin g of fen se by fo ur le ve ls

be cau se th e Io wa of

fen se of carr y in g weap on s do es no t qu al ify as "an ot he r fel on y
of f e n s e" un de r se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

. Si nc e Dav is rai se d th is is su e be fo re th e
di st ric t co ur t

, w e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es an d it s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Sm al l, 59 9

F.3 d 8 14 , 81 5 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Da vis arg ue s th at Hick s' se nt en ce sh ou ld no t ha ve be en en ha nc ed by fo ur le ve ls

fo r po ss es si on of a f

i r earm in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se be cau se hi s

v i o l at io n of Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ) was ba se d on th e sa m e co nd uc t on w h i c h h i s
fed eral of fen se was ba se d. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1, ap p. no te 14 (C). He co nt en ds th at

th is pu ni sh ed th e sa m e co nd uc t twi ce. As Dav is co nc ed es , ho wev er, t hi s ar gu m en t

is fo recl os ed by t hi s co ur t's de ci si on in U n i t e d S t a te s v. W al ke r, 77 1 F.3 d 44 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 14 ). W e ex pl ai ne d in W al ke r th at a v i o l a t i o n o f I owa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ) can

s u p po rt th e ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t be cau se a de fen da nt do es no t

"au to m at ic al ly co m

m it th e [Io wa] fel on y whe n he vi ol at e[s ] 18 U.S. C

. § 92 2( g) by

po ss es si ng a fir earm as a fel on ." Id

. at 45 2– 53

. W e th eref or e affi rm th e ap pl ic at io n

of th e fo ur le ve l se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs en ha nc em en t

to th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se

.

-6

-C. The di st ri ct co urt pl ai nl y erre d in ap pl yi ng the se cti on 2K 2.1 (b)( 4) (A)

sp eci fic of

fens e cha ra cter is tic fo r the st ol en ha ndg un to the unde rl yi ng of fens e.

Fi na ll y , Davi s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t p la in ly erred by app lying th e two

le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng a st ol en ha nd gu n to th e un de rlyin g of fen se

. Si nc e

th is is a sp eci fic of

fen se ch arac te r i s t i c , t h e kn owl ed ge req ui rem en t ap pl ie s. See

U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2 .1(b ) ( 4 ) (A), 2X3 .1, ap p. no te 1. The on ly ev id en ce in th e reco rd

r e l a t i n g to Dav is ' kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e st ol en ha nd gu n is in pa rag rap h fiv e of th e

pr es en te nc e rep or t whi ch st at es : "au th or it ie s la te r de te rm in ed th at th e rev ol v e r h a d

be en st ol en du rin g a ho m e bu rg la ry ." The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at be cau se Dav is di d

no t ob ject to th is fact in th e pr es e n t e n c e r e po rt, it m us t be pr es um ed th at he kn ew

a b o ut th e st ol en gu n. Nev ert he le ss , th e pr es en te nc e rep or t on ly refe rs to t h e

au th or it ie s' k no wled ge

.

The go ve rn m en t ad di ti on al ly arg ue s th at Dav is sh ou ld ha ve kn own th at th e

ha nd gu n was st ol en be cau se Hick s at te m pt ed to co nc eal it du rin g th e tra ffi c st op

. Not

on ly is th is arg um en t sp ecu la ti ve , bu t th ere ar e al so al te rn at iv e ex pl an at io ns fo r Hick s'

de si re to co nc eal th e ha nd gu n fro m la w en fo rcem en t. Fo r ex am pl e as a fel on , Hick s
is pr oh ib it ed fro m po ss es si ng a fir earm ev en if le ga ll y pu rch as ed

. 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. Mo reo ve r, Hick s' tra ns po rta ti on of th e ha nd gu n in a ve hi cl e vi ol at ed Io wa's carr y in g

weap on s of

fen se , Io wa Co de § 72 4.4 (1 ). His at te m pt to hi de th e gu n do es no t it se lf

pr ov e th at Davi s k ne w, or s ho ul d h av e k no wn, t ha t t he gu n was st ol en

.

Si nc e th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pr ov e th at Dav is kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own th at

th e ha nd gu n was st ol en , th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e two le ve l en ha nc em en t

un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(4 )(A). Mo reo ve r, si nc e th ere was no ev id en ce in th e

reco rd whi ch wou ld su pp or t a fin di ng th at he ha d su ch kn owl ed ge , th is e r r o r was pl ai n

. D a v i s ' b a se of

fen se le ve l th us sh ou ld ha ve be en 18

. W it h a th ree le ve l

red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , hi s pr op er se nt en ci ng ran ge was 37 to 46

m on th s rath er tha n 46 to 57

. Si nc e "t he reco rd is si le nt as to wha t th e di st ric t cou rt

-7

-m ig ht ha ve do ne ha d it co ns id ered th e co rrec t Guid el in es ran ge , th e co ur t's rel ia nc e

on an in co rrec t ran ge " is su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at th e erro r affe ct ed Dav is ' su bs ta nt ia l
rig ht s. See Mo li na -Ma rti ne z, 13 6 S . Ct. at 13 47

.

The go ve rn m en t's fai lu re of pr oo f on th is is su e m ay ne ve rth el es s be ex cu sa bl e
si nc e Dav is di d no t rai se th e se nt en ci ng i s s u e b e fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. See Uni te d

St at es v. O s s a n a , 6 3 8 F.3 d 89 5, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The go ve rn m en t sh ou ld

th eref or e ha ve an op po rtu ni ty to ex pa nd th e reco rd on th e is su e du rin g th e rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g. Se e id

.

IV. Con cl us io n.

The di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d by co nc lu di ng th at Hick s' two le ve l se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en t un de r se ct io n 2K2 .1(b )(4 )(A) sh ou ld be ap pl ie d to Dav is ' ba se of fen se
le ve l p ur su an t t o s ect io n 2 X3.1 . Davi s' s en te nc e is va cat ed , and th e cas e rem an de d

fo r res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

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

-8

-