Court Opinion

ID: 9939509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 01:00:32.772744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:21.430770
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50774        Document: 00517061555             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                     No. 22-50774                               February 9, 2024
                                 consolidated with
                                     No. 22-51023                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ______________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Mark Richard Walters,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC Nos. 4:21-CR-327-1,
                                   4:21-CR-327-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Mark Richard Walters appeals his conviction and sentence under 18
   U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because procedural errors were committed in calculating
   his sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, and those errors were
   not harmless, we VACATE his sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50774     Document: 00517061555         Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                      22-50774
                                  c/w No. 22-51023

                                  *        *    *
          Walters was approached by park rangers in Big Bend National Park
   who were responding to a report of a verbal altercation. The rangers learned
   that Walters had outstanding warrants and a criminal history, so they
   arrested him. Walters, a convicted felon, was found to have a Glock 45 9-
   millimeter handgun and three magazines in his vehicle.
          Walters was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in
   possession of a firearm and was additionally indicted for one unrelated
   charge. He pleaded guilty to both charges. The presentence report provided
   a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months for the felon-in-possession charge,
   determining the base offense level from the allegations that: (1) the firearm
   was capable of accepting a large capacity magazine; and (2) Walters had been
   previously convicted for a crime of violence—retaliation under Texas Penal
   Code § 36.06. Walters objected to the PSR, arguing that he did not possess
   a large capacity magazine and that the retaliation conviction did not qualify
   as a crime of violence under the terms of the Sentencing Guidelines. The
   district court nonetheless sentenced Walters to 71 months of imprisonment
   for the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) charge.
          Walters now appeals his sentence, continuing to press his objections
   to the Guidelines calculation. We review the district court’s interpretation
   of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
   United States v. Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d 917, 919 (5th Cir. 2016). “[T]he
   Government bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the
   evidence, the facts necessary to support an elevated base offense level.”
   United States v. Luna-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2022).
          The government does not appear to contest Walters’s argument that
   the Guidelines calculation was incorrect. We conclude that it was incorrect.
   First, we agree with Walters that the government introduced “zero evidence

                                           2
Case: 22-50774      Document: 00517061555          Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                       22-50774
                                   c/w No. 22-51023

   (let alone a preponderance),” see id. at 480, that the magazines found in
   proximity to the firearm in question were large capacity magazines—defined
   as being capable of holding more than 15 rounds. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines
   Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 2K2.1, cmt. n.2. The PSR stated only that “[a]vailable
   information revealed that a standard magazine for a Glock model 45, 9
   millimeter semi-automatic pistol accepts 17 rounds of ammunition.” But
   there was apparently no evidence as to the capacity of the actual magazines
   that were seized. The vague reference to “available information” is not
   sufficient. See United States v. Abrego, 997 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (insufficient for government to rely on firearm manufacturer website for
   evidence of magazine capacity, without evidence that the gun was purchased
   directly from the manufacturer or was in the same condition as marked by the
   manufacturer); cf. Luna-Gonzales, 34 F.4th at 480 (no evidence that
   magazine was compatible with defendant’s actual firearm).
          Second, we agree also that Walters’s retaliation conviction under
   Texas Penal Code § 36.06 is not a conviction for a crime of violence. A
   “crime of violence” must have “as an element the use, attempted use, or
   threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” U.S.S.G.
   § 4B1.2(a)(1). Retaliation under Texas Penal Code § 36.06 has no such
   element. United States v. Martinez-Mata, 393 F.3d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 2004).
   And the “harm” that the provision proscribes is broadly defined elsewhere
   in the Texas Penal Code as “anything reasonably regarded as loss,
   disadvantage, or injury.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(25). Therefore, “a
   retaliation conviction does not require physical force. . . . [I]t is possible to
   harm an individual in retaliation without availing oneself of force against that
   person.” Martinez-Mata, 393 F.3d at 628. Put this together and, as Walters
   points out, the Guidelines range should have been lower than 57 to 71 months.
   See U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1, 3D1.4.

                                          3
Case: 22-50774      Document: 00517061555         Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                      22-50774
                                  c/w No. 22-51023

          We now must determine if this procedural error was harmless. The
   government faces a “heavy burden” to demonstrate harmlessness. United
   States v. Ibarra–Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 717 (5th Cir. 2010).          “First, the
   government must compellingly prove that the district court would have
   imposed a sentence outside the properly calculated sentencing range for the
   same reasons it provided at the sentencing hearing. Second, the government
   must demonstrate that the ‘sentence the district court imposed was not
   influenced in any way by the erroneous Guidelines calculation.’” Martinez-
   Romero, 817 F.3d at 924 (quoting id. at 718–19) (internal citation omitted).
          This case is on all fours with Martinez-Romero. As to the first
   requirement, the district court stated that, even if it had sustained some of
   Walters’s objections, it “would have sentenced Mr. Walters to the sentence
   that the Court sentenced Mr. Walters to.” And it also referenced the factors
   under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as supporting the sentence. Therefore, the
   government has likely met the first requirement to show harmlessness. See
   Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d at 925.
          However, we are not persuaded as to the second requirement.
   Crucially, the sentence of 71 months “coincides with the [highest] end of the
   improperly calculated guideline range.” See id. (observing that the sentence
   coincided with the lowest end of the incorrect range). This selection
   “indicates that the improper guideline calculation influenced the sentence.”
   See id. at 926. In addition, the district court noted its approval of the
   erroneous Guidelines range, stating that “the guideline range in this case [is]
   fair and reasonable.” In Martinez-Romero, we held that both of these factors
   tended to show that the sentence was influenced by an erroneous Guidelines
   range. Id. The government argues that this case more resembles United
   States v. Reyna-Aragon, where we held that an erroneous Guidelines range
   was harmless. 992 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2021). But in that case, the
   sentence imposed was not at the exact top or bottom of the erroneous

                                         4
Case: 22-50774      Document: 00517061555         Page: 5     Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                       22-50774
                                   c/w No. 22-51023

   Guidelines range. Id. Here, we cannot say that the government has met its
   heavy burden to show that the district court’s sentence was “not influenced
   in any way” by the erroneous calculation. See Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d at
   926. Walters’s sentence must accordingly be vacated.
          Finally, Walters argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
   Amendment, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in New York
   State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). He therefore
   requests that his underlying conviction be vacated. Because Walters raises
   this argument for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United
   States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 572 (5th Cir. 2023). “Given the absence of
   binding precedent holding that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, and that it is
   unclear that Bruen dictates such a result,” we hold that Walters has “failed
   to demonstrate that the district court’s application of § 922(g)(1) constitutes
   plain error.” See id. at 574.
                                   *      *      *
          We VACATE Walters’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing
   consistent with this opinion.

                                          5