File Na me: 12a0018n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 10-5182 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. J ERRY L EE SARGENT, Def endant- Appellant. ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and GRI FF I

N, Circuit J udg es; ANDERSON, District Judge. * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J u dg e. J err y L ee Sarg ent claims that the district court

err ed in enhanc ing his sentenc e pursuant to the Armed Caree r Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

. We disag ree and AF F IRM

. I. BACKG ROUND Sarg ent w a s a

r r e s te d a f te r esca ping from an Indiana prison, stealing firea rms, and committing

a number of other crimes. He pleade d guilty to being a felon in possession of a firea rm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1)

. The Presentenc e Report stated that Sarg ent qualified for sentenc ing enhanc ement as a

n Armed Car eer

Criminal based on four prior convictions: (1) a rson; (2) wa

nton endang erme nt in the first degree ; (3) traff icking in more than five pounds of marijuana ; and (4) rape The Honora

ble S. Thomas Ander son, United States District J udg e for the Western District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation.No. 10-5182

United States v. Sargent Pag e 2 in the first degree . At the sentenc ing hear ing, Sarg ent claimed t h at h i s convictions for arson and wanton endang erme nt did not supp o rt t h e sentenc ing enhanc ement. The district court overr uled Sarg ent’s objections, adopted the findings in the Pre sentenc e Report, a nd deter mined that Sarg ent should be sentenc ed under the Armed Caree r Criminal provision. T h e d i s t ri ct court sentenc ed Sarg ent to twenty -seve n y ear s and three months of imprisonment, a sentenc e at the top of his Guidelines rang e. On appea l, Sarg ent argues that the district court err ed in using his convictions for

arson and wanton endang erme nt as predic ate offe nses in sentenc ing him as an Armed Care er Criminal. II. ANALYSIS “The Armed Caree r Criminal Act imposes a specia l mandato ry 15-year prison term upon felons who unlawfully possess a firea rm and who also have three or more previous convictions for committing certain drug crimes or violent felon[ies].” Begay v. United State s , 5 5 3 U.S

. 137, 139 (2008) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted) (alter ation in orig inal). Sarg ent conce des that his prior convictions for marijuana traff icking and rape support his desig nation as an Armed Caree r Criminal. We find that his prior conviction for arson also supports the desig nation, and thus the district court prope rly

enhanc ed his sentenc e under the Act. Sarg ent’s prior conviction for arson qualifies as a violent felony under the Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2)( B) (ii). At the sentenc ing hear ing, Sa rg e n t c laimed that his co-de fenda nt had succe ssfully appea led the arson conviction and that all three co-de fenda nts w ere broug ht ba ck to c ourt and told that there would be a hear ing with reg ards to the g rounds for this reve rsal. On appea l, he argues thatNo. 10-5182

United States v. Sargent Pag e 3 the d i s t ri ct co u rt err ed by shifting the burden to him to prove that his conviction for arson was appea led or va cate d. W e re v i ew for clea

r err or the district court' s fac tual finding that Sarg ent was previously convicted for arson. See United States v. Hough , 276 F. 3 d 8 8 4 , 896 (6th Cir. 2002). The Gover nment bear s the burden of proving by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e the exis tence of a fac tor used to support a sentenc ing enhanc ement. United States v. Gibson , 985 F.2d 86 0 , 8 6 6 (6th Cir. 1993). The district court revie wed a number of rec ords that established the val i d ity of Sarg ent’s

arson conviction: (1) the indictment; (2) the trial order ; (3) the jury verdic t form; (4) the judgme nt; and (5) copies of the order book entries from the circ uit court cler k. Cf. United States v. Crowell , 493 F.3d 744, 748-49 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding t hat t h e dis trict court did not commit clea r error in finding the exis tence of a juvenile court adjudication when the g ov er nment introduced sever al

cer tified documents). In addition, the probation office r revie wed the criminal case file stored in the Kentucky Depa

rtment of L ibrary and Arc hives and found no evidenc e that Sarg ent had succe ssfully appea led the case . In contra st, Sarg ent made only a bald alleg ation that his conviction had been

reve rsed. Cf. United States v. Beasley , 442 F.3d 386, 394 (6th Cir. 2006) (stati n g t h at wh en defe ndant “mer ely hints at some linge ring metaphy sical doubt as to the translation of [a conviction] proposed in the PSR and acc epted by the district judge , without supplying any fac tual basis for this challeng e or sug g esting some other plausible meaning for this notation

. . . [s ] uch a bare denial does not suffice to cast doubt upon the accura cy of t he P SR on t his point”); see also Crowell , 493 F.3d at 749 (holding that the district court did not commit clea r err or in finding the exis tence of a juvenileNo. 10-5182

United States v. Sargent Pag e 4 court adjudication when defe ndant cited only a computer- g ener ated document from the c le r k o f c ourt indic at i n g t h at he had no juvenile rec ord). Thus, the district court did not commit clea r err or by findingthe exist ence of Sarg ent’s ar son conviction. III. CONCLUSION We hold that the di strict court properly included S argen t ’s arson conviction as a predic ate offe nse and e nhance d his sentenc e under the Armed Caree r Criminal Act. Thus, it is unnecessa ry to addre ss Sarg ent’s argument that th e d i s t ri ct court err ed in using his wanton endang erme nt conviction as a predic ate offe nse b ec au s e the drug traff icking , rape , and arson convictions justify applying the Armed Car eer Criminal Act. We AF F IRM the dec ision of the district court.