Opinion ID: 72144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Findings on Gun Usage

Text: Stephens contends that the district court’s determination that Stephens used a real firearm and not a pellet gun in the May 2nd and May 9th robberies constitutes error. As stated previously, factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Armstrong, 550 F.3d at 404. The PSR stated that Stephens used a firearm in the May 2nd and May 9th robberies. Stephens did not object to the PSR; instead, he objected to the sentencing findings on grounds of insufficient evidence. A district court may consider all relevant, even inadmissible, evidence in making factual findings. See United States v. Patterson, 962 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992). A district court may adopt findings in the PSR without additional inquiry if a sufficient indicia of reliability exists and if the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the 9 Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 No. 09-10179 information is materially unreliable. United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 377 (5th Cir. 2009). Stephens furnished the witnesses’ statements from the robberies that indicated that the robber carried “a silver handgun, possibly a revolver,” that he was brandishing a pistol, and that he had a silver semi-automatic handgun. These statements corroborated the findings of the PSR that a handgun and not a pellet rifle were used. While Stephens points out that the arrest report mentions that a black pistol was confiscated, this error is insufficient to demonstrate clear error as to the finding that Stephens used a firearm during the robberies. The district court’s determination that Stephens used a firearm during the May 2nd and May 9th robberies is plausible in light of the record as a whole, and therefore, not clearly erroneous. B. Uncharged 924(c) Offenses in Calculation of Sentence Stephens also complains of the district court’s calculation inasmuch as it used uncharged § 924(c) offenses as the basis for a § 5K2.21 departure when it also applied an offense level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2). We find this calculation goes against the policy behind § 2K2.4. Section 2B3.1(b)(2) lays out differing offense level increases based on the usage of the firearm from adding 2 levels up to 7 additional offense levels. Moreover, § 2B3.1(b)(2) can only be applied if a defendant is not convicted of a § 924(c) offense, but if the Government charges and proves a § 924(c) violation, § 2K2.4 prohibits application of this separate offense enhancement. Here, the district court applied an offense level enhancement in the instant case under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). By finding § 924(c) violations and then attempting to stack those enhancements under § 5K2.21, the district court committed procedural error. 10 Case: 09-10179 Document: 00511076459 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 No. 09-10179 The district court did not properly compute an upward departure Guideline sentence.5 Accordingly, the sentence is VACATED, and we REMAND for resentencing consistent with our opinion. 5 We note, without comment, that the district court retains discretion on remand to make a determination on the propriety of a non-guideline sentence but must first compute a proper guideline sentence before attempting to make a proper non-guideline sentence or upward guideline departure otherwise in conformity with the law. 11