___________ No. 96-2801

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Billy Ray Moit, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 1996 Filed: November 14, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Billy Ray Moit challenges the thirte en-month sentence imposed by the District Court after he pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We reverse.

In conjunction with an unrelated investigation, and with Moit' s cons ent, law enforcement officers searched Moit's residence located o n forty acres in rural Missouri. They seized five firearms, including three shotgu ns, a .30-06 rifle, and a .22 rifle. The officers also seize d numerous unfired .22 rifle rounds and spent .22 rifle shell casings from Moit's clothing, his vehicle, and his driveway, and noted the presence of other ammunition inside the residence.

The PSR assigned a base offense level of 14 under U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(6) (1995). Moit objected, contending his bas e offense level should have been reduced to 6, under U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (1995),

### -2-

beca use he possessed the guns solely for lawful sporting purposes o r collection. Moit asserted that his father--who lived at the residenc e before Moit moved in with his wife and child--owned the guns, possesse d themsolely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and had left the guns at t he residence upon moving to a nearby town. Moit admitted h e constructively possessed the guns, but asserted he had not used them. Moi t and his father testified in conformity with these assertions at sentencing
. Moit argued that the evidence established his father possessed th e guns as keepsakes, so lely for collection purposes, and that Moit kept the guns in his house for his father. Moit noted that the age of some of the weapons indicated that they were antique firearms of the type one woul d collect. The government argued that section 2K2.1(b)(2) did not appl y where a defendant kept a gun collection on behalf of another person, and that the guns were not found in locations consistent with collectio n purposes.
The Distr ict Court found that "substantial evidence and appropriate inferences to be derived from the evidence" show ed the guns and ammunition were not used solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and that Moit had thus failed to carry his burden of proo f. On appeal, Moit argues that the District Court clearly erred in finding he did not possess th e guns solely for lawful sporting or collection purposes, noting that n o evidence was presented that he made any other use of the guns or that he unlawfully discharged the guns.
Moit was entitled to a base offense level of 6 if he proved that he "possessed all ammunition and firearms solely fo r lawful sporting purposes
or collection, and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully us e such f irearms or ammunition." See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 2K2.1(b)(2) (1995); United States v. Kissinger , 986 F.2d 1244, 1246 (8th Cir. 1993) (discussin g burden of proof). After reviewing the record as a whole, we are left with

### -3-

a firm and definite c onviction that a mistake has been committed and thus conclude that the District Court clearly erred i n its finding as to Moit's purposes in possessing the guns. See United Sta tes v. Smith , 49 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); Kissinger , 986 F.2d at 1246.
We note that the District Court did not specifically identify either the "s ubstantial evidence" or the "appropriate inferences" to which i t refe rred, nor did it make any explicit findings as to the witnesses ' credibility. All of the guns were unloaded, hunting-type firearms, and th e ammuni tionretrieved by the officers was consistent with the weapon s involved. Although spent .22 casings were also discovered, the .22 rifle-

- whi chwas found stored in a cabinet--was inoperable, and Moit testifie d that his brother had used another .22 rifle at t he property earlier in the year. Moit denied ha ving shot any of the guns since becoming a convicted felon, and his criminal history reflected no convictions for offense s involv ing firearms. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 , comment. (n.10) (1995) (relevant considerations include number and type of firear ms, amount and type of ammunition, location and circumstances o f posses sionand actual use, nature of defendant's criminal history, an d ex tent to which local law restricted possession). We reject th e government's argument that one who possesses a gun collection owned b y another can never receive a section 2K2.1(b)(2) decrease.
According ly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.