Opinion ID: 624896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prison Term

Text: Mr. Carvin first argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because “[t]he court found [him] in possession of a firearm based upon the sole testimony of a witness proved not credible at trial.” Aplt. Br. at 16. In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we review factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006). Although the government had to prove the charges at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, a court may revoke a term of supervised release if the court “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Ms. Hill testified that she saw a gun on Mr. Carvin’s hip when he entered the home of her boyfriend, Reginald Green. Moments later, someone outside the house fired bullets into the house, injuring two of Ms. Hill’s children, as well as another adult and child. In the course of investigating the shooting, police officers found two firearms in the backyard. Photographs of the firearms were introduced at trial and Ms. Hill identified one of them as the firearm she had seen in Mr. Carvin’s possession that night. Ms. Hill also identified Mr. Carvin in a photo array that was admitted into evidence. Mr. Carvin has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that he possessed a firearm. The district court’s finding that Mr. Carvin possessed a firearm provided the basis for calculating the sentencing guidelines range of six to twelve months. -4- Mr. Carvin had been in custody for seven months and he requested a sentence of time served. In rejecting that request, the court explained: “Given the aggravated nature of the grade [B] violation, the risk that was posed to the children inside the house and the pattern of [Mr. Carvin’s] continued association with groups of felons, I don’t believe that a sentence of time served would be appropriate.” R., Vol. 2 at 599-600. The district court then sentenced Mr. Carvin to a prison term of twelve months, within the guidelines range. A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. McBride, 633 F.3d at 1232-33. But Mr. Carvin contends that his sentence “is plainly unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case,” Aplt. Br. at 19, and asserts that he was not “an active participant in [a] dangerous situation,” Id. at 17. He admitted, however, to violating the terms of his supervised release by “hanging around” with a group of three other convicted felons, R., Vol. 2 at 588-89, and that he went with this group to the house of another convicted felon. The court also referenced testimony from Ms. Hill that this group rushed into the house and shortly thereafter shots were fired into the house. And, the court found that Mr. Carvin was in possession of a firearm that night. Although he argued at the revocation hearing that he “was in the wrong place at the wrong time on that night,” id. at 584, the district court was not persuaded that this was an isolated incident. -5- The court considered the appropriate sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), noting that it had taken into account “the nature and circumstances of the violations, [Mr. Carvin’s] characteristics and history, the sentencing objectives required by Federal law and also the advisory nonbinding Chapter 7 policy statements.” Id. at 603-04. Mr. Carvin has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors identified in § 3553(a) and therefore he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence. See McBride, 633 F.3d at 1233. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to a twelve-month term of imprisonment.