Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/955/291/447986/
Timestamp: 2019-07-16 10:00:14
Document Index: 556643608

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 4', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 5', '§ 3742', '§ 922', '§ 4']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Francis Shano, Defendant-appellant, 955 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1992 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Francis Shano, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert Francis Shano, Defendant-appellant, 955 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 955 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1992)
Feb. 26, 1992. Petitition for Writ of CertiorariDismissed March 24, 1992
We withdraw our previous opinion, U.S. v. Shano, 947 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir. 1991), and substitute the following, which only affects part IV and the remand, resulting in vacating the entire sentence.
Robert Shano appeals his sentence, contesting the finding that he is a career offender. Shano pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a) (2). His sentence was enhanced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. He argues that the district court erred in making one of three findings necessary to this enhancement, to wit, that the offense for which he was convicted was a crime of violence. He also appeals the length of his supervised release. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
Shano was charged in a six-count indictment with crimes related to possession of firearms as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a) (2). Count one charged that on October 10, Shano received a 12 gauge shotgun and a .25 caliber pistol. Count three charged that on October 11, he received a .22 caliber pistol, and count five charged that he received another 12 gauge shotgun on October 17. The remaining counts charged him with knowingly providing false or fictitious statements while acquiring each firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a) (6) and 924(a) (1) (B).
The base period of supervised release for firearms possession by a felon, a class C offense under the sentencing guidelines, is three years. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b) (2). In sentencing Shano to a five-year period, the district court assigned no reasons either for the upward departure or for rejecting the three-year period provided in the plea agreement.
Robert Shano argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under section 4B1.1. We will uphold a criminal sentence unless the defendant demonstrates that it was imposed in violation of the law, was a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, or was outside of the applicable range and was unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Goodman, 914 F.2d 696, 697 (5th Cir. 1990). We review questions of the interpretation of the section 4B1.1 as a question of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Castro-Perpia, 932 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1991). And, we review the application of the guidelines to the facts for clear error. United States v. Medina-Saldana, 911 F.2d 1023, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990).
Shano further argues that his sentence to five years of supervised release was outside the sentencing range for his offense. A departure from the guidelines is within the discretion of the sentencing judge, but the court must assign reasons for its departure. United States v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1990) cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 1318, 113 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1991). We review a departure to determine whether it was reasonable in the light of the appropriate sentencing factors and the stated explanations for the departure. United States v. Rivera, 879 F.2d 1247, 1255 (5th Cir. 1989) cert. denied 493 U.S. 998, 110 S. Ct. 554, 107 L. Ed. 2d 550.
In our recent decision of United States v. Fitzhugh, 954 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1992), we contrasted this amended commentary to our pre-amendment interpretation of section 4B1.2 in United States v. Goodman, 914 F.2d 696 (5th Cir. 1990). In Fitzhugh we held that, in the light of the 1991 sentencing guideline amendments, district courts should no longer consider the facts underlying the offense of conviction in determining whether that offense is a crime of violence under Guidelines sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. More specifically, we held in that case that the conviction of Mark Fitzhugh of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) was not a proper basis for computing his sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2
Shano pled guilty to a class C felony. His plea agreement specified that he was eligible for a maximum of three years' supervised release. Guidelines section 5D1.2(b) (2) specifies that the term of a supervised release, when ordered for class C felonies, shall be of "at least two years but not more than three years." The government concedes that the district court gave insufficient reasons for its upward departure.