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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 20 38

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

W ay ne J. J on es , II

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 - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ne 14 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

W ay ne Jo ne s pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on an d un la wfu l dr ug us er in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d am m

un it io n, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 2( g) (3 ), an d92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 43 m on th s im p r i s o n m en t, to be 1
fo ll o wed by th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Jo ne s ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce on fo ur

se pa rat e g ro un ds . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

Fi rs t, J o n es ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t to hi s ba se of fen se l e ve l fo r po ss es si on of at le as t th ree fir earm s
pu rs ua nt to Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s M an ua l, § 2 K 2

. 1 ( b) (1 )(A). “ Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d

ap pl i c a t i o n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s de no vo , an d

. . . rev ie w[s] it s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g en ha nc em en ts fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St a t e s v. Aug us ti ne , 66 3
F.3 d 36 7, 37 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it t e d )

. “ A fin di ng is cl earl y erro ne ou s whe n th e rev ie win g co ur t, on t h e ba si s of al l th e ev id en ce, is le ft wit h t he de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s b een m ad e.” Uni te d S ta te s v. W el ls
, 12 7 F.3d 73 9, 7 45 (8t h C ir. 19 97 ); see al so And ers on v. Cit y of Bes se m er Ci ty, 4 70 U.S. 5 64 , 5 73 (1 98 5) (“ Th[e cle ar-e rro r] s ta nd ard pl ai nl y do es no t en ti tl e

a rev ie win g co ur t to r e v e r s e t h e f in di ng of th e tri er of fact si m pl y be cau se it is

co nv in ced th at it wou ld ha ve de ci de d t he cas e d iff eren tl y .”).

Jo ne s ar g u es th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce th at he po ss es s e d a t le as t th ree fir earm s. Howev er, he co nc ed es th at he

po ss es se d two fir earm s, se e App el la nt ’s Br. 14
, an d ad m it s th at he in te nd ed to us e a th ird fir earm at a sh oo ti ng ran ge , bu t di d no t do so

. Id

. at 15

. Und er § 2K2 .1(b )(1 ),

a co ur t m ay co un t an y fir earm th at w a s “u n l a wfu ll y so ug ht to be ob ta in ed ”

or “ un la wfu ll y po ss es se d[ .] ” U S S G § 2K2 .1, co m m en t. (n .5). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d Jo ne s di d no t us e th is th ird fir earm on ly be cau se he br ou gh t th e wro ng

am m un it io n, co nc lu di ng th at su ffi ci en t ev id en ce de m on st rat ed Jo ne s’s po ss es si on of th is fir earm

. Sen t. Hr’g Tr. 66
, Dis t. Ct

. Dkt

. 60

. Ove ral l, th e co ur t fo un d Jo ne s

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-po ss es se d th ree gu ns ph ot og rap he d on a co uc h at hi s r e si de nc e; fo un d Jo ne s

po ss es se d lo ng gu ns us ed at a sh oo ti ng ran ge ; an d fo un d th a t Jo ne s at te m pt ed to
pu rch as e a lo ng gu n us in g hi s so n as a st raw pur ch as er. Sen t. Hr’ g Tr. 66

. Fu rth er, wit ne ss es to ld th e FBI th at th ey ha d go ne ta rg et sh oo ti ng wit h Jo ne s du rin g th e pr io r
y ear an d th at th ey al l ha d fir ed th ree ha nd gu ns

. W e fin d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, an d co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e two

le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(A).

Seco nd
, Jo ne s a r g u e s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t gr an ti ng hi m a do wnwar d va ria nc e ba se d on hi s co m m un it y a n d ci vi c act iv it ie s. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to gr an t a do wnwar d va ria nc e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d
St at es v. Ja ck so n, 85 2 F.3 d 76 4, 77 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 7)

. “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or , whe n it gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or whe n it

co ns id ers on ly ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t ne ve rth el es s co m mits a cl ear erro r of jud g men t

. ” U n i t ed St at es v. St ok es , 65 2 F. App ’x 48 1, 48 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er

cu ria m ).

W e ha ve up he ld a di st ric t co ur t’s “ ch oi ce to as si gn rel at iv el y gr eat er weig ht to
t h e n a t u re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se th an to th e [d efen da nt ’s] m it ig at in g
pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs ” be cau s e s u c h a ch oi ce “ is well wit hi n th e wid e la ti tu de [g iv en ] to in di vi d ua l di st ric t co ur t jud ge s in weig hi ng rel ev an t fact or s.” Id

. at 48 3 (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at , al th ou gh “ [t]he re are cert ai nl y cas es an d in st an ces whe re in vo lv em en t in ci vi c an d rel ig io us act iv it ie s co ul d be a fact or fo r a va ria nc e or a de pa rtu re,” th is was no t su ch a cas e be cau se “ [t]he ag gr av at in g fact or s far ou twei gh

an y m it ig at in g f

a c t o r s

. ” Sen t. Hr’g Tr. 79

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n re fu si ng to gra nt th e req ue st ed do wnwar d v ari an ce.

-3

-Thi rd , J on es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng t h e g ov ern m en t’s

m ot io n fo r an up ward de pa rtu re pu rs ua nt to USSG § 4A1 .3(a )(1 ). “ W e rev ie w an
up ward de pa r t u r e un de r § 4A1 .3 fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Tay lo r, 86 4 F.3 d 85 1, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ). Howev er, al th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t

m ov ed fo r an up ward de pa rtu re or va ria nc e, se e Sen t. Hr’g Tr. 79
, co nt rary to Jo ne s’
arg um en t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t de pa rt up ward ; it “ va r[i ed ] up ward .” Sen t. Hr’g Tr. 79 -8 4. Jo ne s ack no wled ge s th is in hi s br ie f. See App el la nt ’s Br. 11 (“ The
Co ur t va rie d up ward to 43 m on th s.”)

. Sect i o n 4 A 1 .3(a ) ap pl ie s on ly to up ward de pa r t u r e s an d th e cas es Jo ne s ci te s in vo lv ed up ward de pa rtu res

. Acco rd in gl y , we wil l no t co ns id er Jo ne s’s arg um en t, as it is pr em is ed on so m et hi ng th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t do

. To th e ex te nt Jo ne s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

v ar yi ng up ward
, se e Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 74 3 F. App ’x 70 8, 70 9, 71 1 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ), th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Upo n rev ie w of th e

reco rd
, we ha ve no t id en ti fie d an y rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fail ed to co ns id er, nor an y im pr op er or irrel ev an t fact or s th at it sh ou ld

no t ha ve co ns id ered
, no r an y cl ear erro r of jud gm en t on th e pa rt of th e di st ric t co ur t.

Fi na ll y , Jo ne s ar g u e s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in im po si ng a two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t to h is ba se of fen se le ve l fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3C 1.1

. “ W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s u nd erl y in g an ad jus tm en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce fo r c l e a r e r ro r, gi vi ng gr eat de fere nc e to th e

. . . co ur t’s de te rm in at i o n

. ” Uni te d St at es v. McDo na ld
, 82 6 F.3 d 10 66
, 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so And ers on , 47 0 U.S. at 57 3; W el ls
, 12 7 F.3 d at 74 5. The ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t “ ap pl ie s whe n th e di st ric t co ur t fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e e v i d e n ce th at a de fen da nt co m m it te d pe rjury by wil lfu ll y te st ifyin g fal se ly on a m at eri al m at te r.” Uni te d St at es v. Nsh an ia n, 82 1 F.3 d
10 13
, 10 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ [T]he di st ric t co ur t m us t m ak e an in de pe nd en t fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce.” Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dun ni ga n, 50 7 U.S.
87
, 95 (1 99 3) ). “ It is pr efer ab le fo r th e di st ric t c o u r t t o ad dr es s each el em en t of

pe rjury in a se pa rat e an d cl ear fin di ng , bu t it is su ffi ci en t if th e co ur t m ak es a fin di ng

-4

-th at ‘enco m

pa ss es al l of th e fact ua l pr ed ic at es fo r a fin di ng of pe rjury.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Dun ni ga n, 5 07 U.S. at 9 5)

.

Not wit hs ta nd in g Jo ne s’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s do no t ad eq ua te ly su pp or t an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t, se e A ppe lla nt’ s Br

. 24- 25, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, th a t J o n e s “gav e fal se

m at eri al te st im on y ” on “ a nu m be r of m at te rs [,]” in cl ud in g “ th e nu m be r of fir earm s th at he po ss es se d ” a nd “ hi s de ni al of an at te m pt to pu rch as e th e lo ng gu n us in g hi s

so n as a st raw pu rch as e r

. ” S e n t

. Hr’g Tr. 67

. The co ur t fo un d th at Jo ne s’s “ fal se
t e s t i mo n y was no t a res ul t of m is ta ke or co nf us io n” an d th at “ [h ]e ga ve fal se
te st im on y in th e ho pe s of red uc in g hi s ex po su re un de r th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es .” Sen t. H r ’g Tr

. 6 7. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ex pr es sl y st at e th at Jo ne s’s fal s e
te st im on y was wil lfu l, we ha ve up he ld an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t in th e ab se nc e of su ch an ex pr es s fin di ng whe n a de fen da nt ’s fal se te st im on y “ was no t th e
pr od uc t o f co nf

us io n, m is ta ke or f

au lt y m em or y .” McDo na ld , 82 6 F .3d at 1 07 1- 72 (“ The di st ric t co ur t p oi nt ed to a sp eci fic po rti on of [ th e d efen da nt ]’ s te st im on y th at

co nc ern ed a m at eri al m at te r—t ha t is
, th at he de ni ed po ss es si on of th e fir earm s de sp it e

ov erw h e l mi n g ev id en ce to th e co nt rary.”). W e fin d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, an d co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e two

le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3C 1.1

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-5

-