Opinion ID: 69120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Firearm versus dangerous weapon

Text: Rivera contends that the district court erred in finding that he used an actual firearm during the attempted bank robbery. “[W]e review the factual findings underlying the district court’s sentencing determination for clear error.” United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If a defendant challenges one of the factual bases for his sentence, the government must prove the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 The Probation Officer recommended a four-level enhancement pursuant to Guidelines § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) for the “otherwise use[]” of a dangerous weapon. 2 United States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 1999). The district court may consider reliable hearsay evidence at sentencing, so long “as the evidence has sufficient indicia of reliability, the [district] court makes explicit findings of fact as to credibility, and the defendant has an opportunity to rebut the evidence.” United States v. Zlatogur, 271 F.3d 1025, 1031 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quotations marks and citation omitted). In addition, “the appellate court shall give due regard to the opportunity of the sentencing court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. . . .” United States v. Glinton, 154 F.3d 1245, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Pursuant to the Guidelines, the term “[f]irearm” means a weapon that is designed “to expel a projectile.” U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(G). The term “[d]angerous weapon” encompasses “an object that is not an instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury but (I) closely resembles such an instrument; or (II) the defendant used the object in a manner that created the impression that the object was such an instrument . . . .” Id. at § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(D)(ii). The evidence presented during sentencing included: (1) testimony from the bank teller that the object Rivera held during the robbery appeared to be a real gun and that Rivera, an employee of the bank, previously boasted of owning a gun; (2) 3 testimony from the investigating officer that Rivera’s co-defendant asserted that the gun was real and that Rivera stated, en route to the robbery, that he hoped to be able to shoot a particular bank employee; and (3) recent receipts documenting Rivera’s purchases from a hunting/fishing shop with a shooting range. Given this evidence, Rivera has failed to meet his burden and to establish that the district court clearly erred by finding that Rivera possessed an actual firearm during the robbery.