Opinion ID: 77994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mock's Sentence

Text: In calculating Mock's base offense level for the two counts relating to the large fires, the district court applied a cross-reference in the arson guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(c), to the attempted first-degree murder guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1. The arson guideline contains a cross-reference, providing that: If death resulted, or the offense was intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, apply the most analogous guideline from Chapter Two, Part A (Offenses Against the Person) if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above. U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(c)(1). Chapter Two, Part A of the manual contains the guideline for attempted first-degree murder, which applies only when the object of the offense would have constituted first-degree murder. U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(1). For purposes of § 2A2.1(a)(1), murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). First-degree murder is defined, in relevant part, as [e]very murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). The district court applied the guideline for attempted first-degree murder without making explicit findings. Instead, without elaboration, it concluded that it would apply the cross-reference because the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the more appropriate guidelines to be applied in this case are § 2K1.4(c) and § 2A2.1. For the cross-reference to apply, however, a preponderance of the evidence must show that Mock intended to cause death or serious bodily injury in setting the two larger fires. [1] Only if the court concludes that Mock did have such an intent, must it evaluate which guideline from Chapter Two, Part A is most analogous to the offense. Although the district court may have based its decision to depart from the arson guideline and apply § 2A2.1 on the above finding, we cannot be sure that it did. [T]o facilitate judicial review of sentencing decisions and avoid unnecessary remands, sentencing judges should make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law. United States v. Villarino, 930 F.2d 1527, 1528 (11th Cir.1991) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, we find that the district court's failure to make specific findings of law and fact precludes meaningful appellate review. See id. at 1529. Accordingly, we vacate Mock's sentence and remand his case for the district court to reexamine the applicability of § 2A2.1 in light of this opinion and to make explicit findings. [2] AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.