Court Opinion

ID: 9841339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 00:00:39.366375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:53.558971
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20636   Document: 00516904261   Page: 1   Date Filed: 09/21/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                           ____________  FILED
                                                         September 21, 2023
                            No. 22-20636                    Lyle W. Cayce
                          Summary Calendar                       Clerk
                          ____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Charles Cox,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.

                        consolidated with
                          ____________

                            No. 22-20658
                           ____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Jarred Adams,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-20636         Document: 00516904261             Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                          No. 22-20636
                                        c/w No. 22-20658

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 4:21-CR-355-2, 4:21-CR-355-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Codefendants Charles Cox and Jarred Adams appeal the sentences
   imposed following their guilty plea convictions for two counts of aiding and
   abetting the interference with commerce by robbery, one count of aiding and
   abetting the discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
   violence, and one count of aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm
   during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and 2. Because their appeals present the
   same issue, the appeals in No. 22-20636 and No. 22-20658 are
   CONSOLIDATED.
          In April 2021, Cox and Adams committed two robberies of stores in
   Houston, Texas. During the first robbery, Adams shot a store employee,
   “J.F.,” while Cox stayed in the car as the getaway driver. The presentence
   reports (PSRs) provided that Adams “shot his firearm at J.F. striking
   him/her in the arm and the abdomen area. J.F. fell to the ground.” As
   described further, “J.F. was shot in the back and the bullet clipped his/her
   kidney, came out of his/her stomach, and entered and lodged into his/her left
   arm.” Officers subsequently spoke to J.F. at the hospital and he/she said
   he/she did not move, and Adams still fired the gun.” Based on the foregoing,
   the PSRs included a six-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 22-20636      Document: 00516904261         Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                    No. 22-20636
                                  c/w No. 22-20658

   § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) based on the allegation that L.F. sustained a “permanent or
   life-threatening bodily injury” during the commission of the robbery.
          Cox objected to the enhancement arguing that he was the getaway
   driver and therefore was not responsible for any alleged injuries. Adams
   objected to the enhancement arguing that the information presented in the
   PSR was insufficient to substantiate that J.F. sustained a “permanent or life-
   threatening bodily injury,” as defined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1. In response, the
   probation officer repeated the factual recitation set out in the PSR and further
   alleged:
          The bullet went through [J.F.]’s body and pierced his/her bod-
          ily organs. The bullet did not strike an extremity such as a toe
          or a finger, it went through the victim’s body, striking a kidney.
          This in itself is life-threatening. [J.F.] survived; however, that
          does not diminish the life-threatening situation that the victim
          was placed in when the defendant fired a bullet into his/her
          body.
   The district court overruled the objections and sentenced Cox below the
   advisory guidelines range to a total of 240 months of imprisonment. Adams
   was sentenced within the guidelines range to a total of 281 months of
   imprisonment.
          On appeal, Cox and Adams raise the same sole issue: that the district
   court’s application of a six-level permanent or life-threatening bodily injury
   enhancement was reversible error because the Government did not
   sufficiently prove the requisite degree of bodily injury. Because Adams
   objected to the enhancement on the same basis as he now raises on appeal,
   we review his challenge for clear error. See United States v. Blanco, 27 F.4th
   375, 382 (5th Cir. 2022). Conversely, we review Cox’s challenge to the
   enhancement for plain error. See United States v. Sanchez-Arvizu, 893 F.3d

                                          3
Case: 22-20636      Document: 00516904261          Page: 4     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 22-20636
                                   c/w No. 22-20658

   312, 315 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Pittsinger, 874 F.3d 446, 450-51 (5th
   Cir. 2017).
          Pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(3), if any victim sustained bodily injury during
   the commission of a robbery, the offense level is increased according to the
   seriousness of the injury. As relevant here, a six-level increase is applied if
   the victim’s bodily injury was “permanent or life-threatening,”
   § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C), which is defined as an “injury involving a substantial risk
   of death; loss or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member,
   organ, or mental faculty that is likely to be permanent; or an obvious
   disfigurement that is likely to be permanent,” § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(K)).
   Whether or not a victim sustained a bodily injury of a certain degree is an
   individualized factual inquiry based on the evidence of the victim’s injury and
   not on the severity of the defendant’s actions. United States v. Guerrero, 169
   F.3d 933, 946 (5th Cir. 1999).        Consequently, when lacking sufficient
   evidence of the resulting bodily injury, it is improper for the district court to
   infer that the victim sustained the requisite degree of injury based only on an
   assumption that a particular act would result in a particular injury. See id. at
   946-47.
          Here, there was insufficient evidence that the bullet wounds caused a
   substantial risk of death, resulted in the loss or substantial impairment of the
   function of a bodily member or organ that is likely to be permanent, or
   resulted in an obvious disfigurement that is likely to be permanent. See
   § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(K)). While the record reflects that J.F.’s kidney was
   “clipped,” it does not reveal how this affected the functioning of the organ
   or whether J.F. faced a substantial risk of death because of this injury.
   Likewise, the record does not reveal how the bullet entries and exits through
   the back, stomach, and arm affected the functioning of these parts of J.F.’s
   body. We therefore conclude that the permanent or life-threatening bodily

                                          4
Case: 22-20636      Document: 00516904261         Page: 5    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                    No. 22-20636
                                  c/w No. 22-20658

   injury enhancement was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence
   in the record, and the district court committed clear error by increasing Cox’s
   and Adams’s offense levels under § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C). See Guerrero, 169 F.3d
   at 946-47.
          Because there is no indication in the record that the district court
   would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the proper guidelines
   range, the error in Adams’s case was not harmless. See United States v. Neal,
   578 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 2009). Likewise, because we conclude that the
   error was clear or obvious and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate
   that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the
   erroneous application of the enhancement, Cox has demonstrated that his
   substantial rights were affected, and corrective action is warranted. See
   Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 200 (2016); United States v.
   Urbina-Fuentes, 900 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 2018).
          In light of the foregoing, we VACATE and REMAND Cox’s and
   Adams’s sentences for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         5