Opinion ID: 2816862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Felon in possession of firearm charge

Text: Purvis first asserts the district court committed plain error by considering that he was originally indicted for, but not convicted of, a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm in its imposition of sentence. Where, as here, a defendant does not raise an objection to the district court’s consideration of an impermissible factor at the time of sentencing, this Court reviews for plain error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). Plain error occurs when there is (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affect substantial rights, and (4) that error seriously affects the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings. United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010). “A substantial right is affected if the appealing party can show that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different result had there been no error.” United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 831-32 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 14-15661 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 3 of 8 The district court is free to consider any information relevant to a defendant’s “background, character, and conduct” in imposing an upward variance. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding it was proper for the district court to take into account a withheld adjudication in imposing an upward variance because it was relevant to the defendant’s background, character, and conduct). However, the district court may take uncharged or acquitted conduct into account in sentencing only if such conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court did not commit plain error. Although the district court did not make a finding the prior charge was proven, there was no substantial rights violation because Purvis admitted facts establishing his guilt as to that prior charge. His plea agreement included his admission the police recovered a firearm from him when he was arrested following a controlled drug buy. In addition, the presentence investigation report (PSI), to which he did not object, stated he was a felon and possessed a firearm while his rights had not been restored. See Bennett, 472 F.3d at 832 (“A sentencing court’s findings of fact may be based on undisputed statements in the PSI.”); United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating a defendant who does not object to the facts in the PSI is deemed to have admitted them for sentencing purposes). As a result, Purvis cannot establish plain error. 3 Case: 14-15661 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 4 of 8