# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 11 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Laeri c West

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 Weste rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 6, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 16 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Laeri c W es t pl ead ed gu il t y to be in 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. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m 1

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 ctof Ark an sa s.to 12 0 m on th s i n p r i s o n , 3 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d a $1 0,0 00 fin e. W es t

ap pe al s. His co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f u n d e r A n d e r s v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg u i n g t h at th e co ur t pr oc edur al ly erre d in cal cu la ti ng W es t’s Gui de li ne s
se nt en ci ng ran ge by ap pl y in g an en ha nc em en t un de r USSG §2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) (4 -le ve l in crea se forpo ss es si ng a fi rear m in co nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se ).

W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce fir st fo r si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al e r r o r an d se co nd fo r
su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Farm er, 647 F.3 d 11 75 , 11 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). As to co un se l’s arg um en t, rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de n o v o a n d it s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r, se e Uni te d St at es v. San ch ez, 67 6 F.3 d 62 7, 63 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), we co nc lu de th at th e co ur t di d no t cl earl y
err by cred it in g po li ce of

fic er Bai n Po tt er’s te st im on y , se e Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 68 1 F. 3 d 9 3 2, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io ns m ad e at se nt en ci ng are vi rtu al ly un as sa il ab le on ap pe al ), an d it di d no t err by de te rm in in g ba se d on Po tt er’s te st im on y th at W es t po ss es se d t h e f i rear m in co nn ect io n wit h a fel on y drug
tra ffi ck in g of

fen se , se e Uni te d St at es v. Alm ei da -Per ez, 54 9 F.3 d 11 62 , 11 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (wh en ap pl ic at io n of §2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) en h an cem en t in vo lv es drug -tr affi ck in g fel on y , co ur t m

us t ap pl y en ha nc em en t un le ss it is cl earl y im pr ob ab le th at gu ns were po ss es se d in co nn ect io n wit h drug of fen se ). W e al so co nc lu de th at W es t’s se nt en ce is no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. Hul l, 64 6 F.3 d 58 3, 58 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rev ie win g se nt en ce un de r de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f

- d i s cret io n st an da rd , an d

acco rd in g pr es um

pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss to se nt en ce wit hi n ad vi so r y G ui de li ne s
ran ge ); Uni te d St at es v. Kno x, 63 4 F.3 d 46 1, 46 4- 6 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (fi nd in g th at di st ric t co ur t du ly ad dr es se d de fen da nt ’s ab il it y to pa y fi n e w h e r e it co ns id ered de fen da nt ’s ass et s an d l ia bi li ti es an d c reat edpa ym en t p la n)

.

Afte r in de pe nd en tl y

rev ie win g th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t,

an d we gr an t co un se l le av e to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g ap pe ll an t ab ou t pr oc edur es forsee ki ng reh eari ng or f il in g a pe ti ti on forcert io rari

.

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

-2

-