1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3215

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Mark Anderson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

 ___________

Submitted: March 10, 2004

Filed: March 16, 2004

___________

Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark Anderson (Anderson) was convicted of being a felon in possession of

firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court2

 sentenced

Anderson to 24 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On

appeal, Anderson contends the district court erred in finding the firearms were not
2

possessed “solely for lawful sporting purposes,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2), and in

denying him a sentencing reduction to a base offense level of six. We affirm.

Section 2K2.1(b)(2) provides, “[i]f the defendant . . . possessed all ammunition

and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully

discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition,” then the base

offense level is reduced to six. Anderson bears the burden of proving a reduction in

his base offense level is warranted. United States v. Ramirez-Rios, 270 F.3d 1185,

1187 (8th Cir. 2001). “We review the district court’s finding regarding [a

defendant’s] purpose in possessing the firearms for clear error.” United States v.

Truelson, 169 F.3d 1173, 1174 (8th Cir. 1999). In determining whether the reduction

should apply, a district court examines “[r]elevant surrounding circumstances[,]

includ[ing] the number and type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the

location and circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s

criminal history . . . , and the extent to which possession was restricted by local law.”

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. n.10. 

On December 18, 2002, a Green County, Missouri, sheriff’s deputy initiated

a traffic stop of Anderson’s truck after the deputy observed Anderson’s truck roll

through a stop sign. During the course of the traffic stop, the deputy discovered three

concealed and loaded firearms–a .22 rifle, a 20-gauge shotgun, and a .357 Magnum

revolver–inside Anderson’s truck in violation of Missouri law. The .357 revolver

was located in a holster tucked between the seat and wheel well compartment and was

concealed from view. This same firearm was registered as having been previously

confiscated by law enforcement during a police shootout in which Anderson was

wounded and arrested.

At the sentencing hearing, the deputy testified Anderson was cooperative when

stopped, telling the deputy he had firearms in the truck, he was a convicted felon, and

he and his daughter were going target shooting at a friend’s house. The deputy
3

further discovered inside Anderson’s truck six .357 rounds and eleven .22 rounds, but

found no additional ammunition for the 20-gauge shotgun or any evidence of target

shooting, such as paper targets, clay pigeons, or tin cans. Based on the quantity of

ammunition recovered, the deputy estimated the ammunition would provide two to

three minutes of slow target shooting. The deputy also testified that, over the past

eight years, he had frequently patrolled the area where the traffic stop occurred and

had no knowledge of a shooting range located in the area.

 The district court determined the .357 revolver was illegally concealed in the

truck, thereby rendering Anderson ineligible for a section 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction. The

court also stated it did not believe Anderson’s testimony regarding the possession and

intended use of the firearms. Based on evidence adduced at sentencing, including

Anderson’s three prior convictions for firearm offenses, his possession of firearms

during two additional encounters with law enforcement, and the firearms discovered

in this stop, with minimal ammunition and no targets, we conclude the district court

did not clearly err in finding (1) Anderson’s testimony is incredible; and (2) Anderson

is ineligible for a base offense reduction pursuant to section 2K2.1(b)(2).

Accordingly, we affirm Anderson’s sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________