Opinion ID: 794725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Riley's Conviction and Sentencing

Text: 39 Riley was indicted in a three-count superseding indictment (indictment) charging him with (1) being a previously convicted felon in possession of firearms, to wit, the Remington rifle and the sawed-off M-1 rifle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (count 1); (2) knowingly possessing the sawed-off, unregistered M-1 rifle, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871 (count 2); and (3) knowingly making a materially false statement on a matter within the jurisdiction of the DEA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (count 3). A second superseding indictment added a fourth count and a fifth count, to wit, (a) distributing, and (b) conspiring to distribute, cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The second superseding indictment also alleged that at least one of the firearms described in count 1 was possessed in connection with another felony offense and that the sawed-off M-1 rifle was a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a); and it cited Guidelines § 2K2.1, which recommends enhanced punishment for such offense characteristics. Riley promptly entered into a plea agreement with the government. In exchange for the dismissal of counts 2-5, he pleaded guilty to count 1, i.e., being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 40 The presentence report (PSR) prepared by the probation office calculated that under the Guidelines, which the PSR noted were not mandatory in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Riley had a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category (CHC) of VI. The district court, in the exercise of its discretion, generally adopted the Guidelines calculations at Riley's sentencing hearing. 41 Riley's base offense level was set at 26 because his offense involved a shortened firearm as described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) and his prior record included convictions for armed robberies and sale of a controlled substance, see Guidelines § 2K2.1. For those convictions, Riley had been sentenced to two concurrent one-year terms of imprisonment, of which he served 242 days before being released. Although Riley objected that those convictions were New York State Youthful Offender Adjudications with respect to offenses committed when he was 18 years of age and thus should not count, the district court disagreed. The court noted that although New York labeled them [y]outhful offender adjudications, they were adult felony convictions within the meaning of the Guidelines, see Guidelines § 2K2.1 Application Note 1 (A conviction for an offense committed at age eighteen years or older is an adult conviction.). The court concluded that, given the nature of Riley's conduct, those crimes should not be discounted as simple youthful indiscretions: 42 There's some relevant factors to this particular set of convictions. First, the defendant was in fact not a minor. He was 18 years of age. Second, the robberies in particular were very violent offenses. Drugs obviously were of significant drug offense as well [ sic ]. Third, they resulted in commitment to a prison, to an adult prison for a significant period of time. In fact, the sentences caused—the sentences called for one year imprisonment. 43 Those are extraordinarily serious offenses, in my view, and they're offenses not of a minor but of an adult. An 18 year old adult for sure. But an adult. 44 And the Court feels that, based upon [ United States v. ] Cuello, [357 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 543 U.S. 890, 125 S.Ct. 113, 160 L.Ed.2d 152 (2004)] those are supposed to be or should be included. The Court, in its discretion, includes those in assessing the base offense level and agrees with the recommendation of the probation officer. 45 (S.Tr. 120 (emphases added).) 46 Riley's offense level was increased (a) by two steps as recommended by Guidelines § 2K2.1 (b)(1) because of his possession of three or more firearms (two rifles and a handgun); (b) by four additional steps as recommended by § 2K2.1 (b)(5) because he possessed a firearm in connection with other felony offenses, including narcotics trafficking; and (c) by two steps as recommended by § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice on account of his instructions to Johnson to remove, conceal, or get rid of his guns in order to allow him to avoid liability for possessing them, see Part II below. After a three-step downward adjustment pursuant to § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, Riley's total offense level was 31. 47 Riley's CHC of VI was based on his record of five New York Adjudications. Given an offense level of 31 and a CHC of VI, the Guidelines-recommended imprisonment range was 188-235 months. However, because the statutory maximum prison term for violation of § 922(g)(1) was 120 months, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), the court sentenced Riley to 120 months' imprisonment. The court also noted that it would have ordered a 120-month prison term even if Riley's two Youthful Offender Adjudications had been excluded from the offense-level calculations. Without consideration of those two offenses, Riley's 48 offense level after the application of the three-level reduction for acceptance [of responsibility] would be 25. Criminal history category six. The sentencing range is 110, I believe to 137 months. And the Court would say that the Court would impose the same sentence as being imposed at this point. 49 (S.Tr.123.) 50 Judgment was entered accordingly, and this appeal followed.