Opinion ID: 45366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of PSI report

Text: Hampton challenges the district court’s finding that he possessed the firearm based on information in the PSI report. To preserve an objection to his sentence for appeal, a defendant must raise the legal issue in clear and simple language to the district court. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2006). Here Hampton’s attorney filed an objection to the PSI report which argued that no 5 evidence showed the firearm belonged to the defendant or that the defendant ever possessed the firearm while selling cocaine. Although his oral objection focused on a different legal theory (that the firearm and crime were not connected), he incorporated by reference his filed statements. We will therefore treat the issue as preserved and review the finding under the clearly erroneous standard. Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), a two-level enhancement is warranted if a dangerous weapon, including a firearm, was possessed. This enhancement should be applied if a weapon was present “unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.3. The district court may base its findings of fact on evidence present at trial or sentencing, facts admitted by the defendant, or undisputed statements in the PSI. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989). When facts are in dispute, once the prosecution shows by the “preponderance of evidence that the firearm was present at the site of charged conduct, the evidentiary burden shifts to the defendant to show that a connection between the firearm and the offense is clearly improbable.” United States v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62, 63 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In the instant case, the PSI clearly stated that, following his arrest, Hampton signed a “Waiver of Final Hearing” admitting his guilt for possession of cocaine, possession of a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 6 There was only one firearm found in Hampton’s home—the .9mm handgun found in the same drawer as the buy-in money. The waiver’s contents and the gun’s location were undisputed. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Hampton possessed it for purposes of the enhancement. Hampton failed to proffer evidence at sentencing that it was clearly improbable that the firearm was possessed in connection with the offense, and, therefore, the district court did not err by relying on solely the PSI to support the enhancement.