Court Opinion

ID: 9555329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 17:01:33.138894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:21.858632
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12943    Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023   Page: 1 of 13

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12943
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        CHRISTOPHER JAWAN WEAVER,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00279-MHH-NAD-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023        Page: 2 of 13

        2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12943

        Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Christopher Weaver appeals his 57-month sentence
        imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a
        convicted felon. He argues that the district court clearly erred in
        imposing a four-level guidelines enhancement under
        U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of the firearm in
        connection with another felony offense. After review, we affirm.
                                     I.      Background
                On April 6, 2021, an altercation ensued between Weaver,
        then age 38, and B.J., the 16-year-old daughter of Weaver’s
        girlfriend Williams, during which he pistol-whipped the minor in
        the face.1 A grand jury indicted Weaver for possession of a firearm
        by a convicted felon, and he pleaded guilty without the benefit of
        a plea agreement.
              Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation Office
        prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), which
        included a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), for
        possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense.
        The other felony offense was Alabama second-degree assault 2

        1 The gun belonged to Weaver’s girlfriend, Williams.  Weaver admitted
        during the change-of-plea hearing that he knew he had a prior felony
        conviction and was not supposed to possess a firearm.
        2 Initially, the PSI indicated that Weaver possessed the firearm in connection

        with the felony offense of first-degree domestic violence. However, at the
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023        Page: 3 of 13

        22-12943                  Opinion of the Court                               3

        based on the underlying altercation. Weaver’s resulting guidelines
        range was 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment. Weaver objected to the
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, arguing in relevant part that his
        conduct did not establish the offense because he had not intended
        to harm B.J. and was just trying “to get her off of him and remove
        himself from the situation.”
               At sentencing, the government called several witnesses to
        establish the assault. 3 Deputy Travis Burks testified that he and
        Officer Christopher Davis responded to a domestic violence call
        just after midnight on April 6, 2021. Upon arrival, Davis went
        inside the home, while Burks began walking around the exterior.
        When Burks went inside, he found B.J. and Weaver in a back room
        of the home. Officer Burks observed that B.J.’s “face was covered
        in blood” from a gash over her left eye, and she “had blood on her
        face and on her shirt.” Officer Burks stated that Weaver was lying
        on the floor in the back room, and “[t]here was a large amount of
        blood on the floor and on the wall” of the room. There was a small
        handgun with blood on it on a shelf in the back room near Weaver.
        Officers had to place B.J. and Weaver in separate areas of the home
        because they continued to argue with each other, and B.J., who
        officers described as “upset” and “hyped up,” attempted repeatedly

        sentencing hearing, the government explained that it planned to prove instead
        that Weaver possessed the firearm in connection with the felony offense of
        second-degree assault under Alabama law, and the court modified the PSI
        accordingly.
        3 Testimony unrelated to the issue on appeal is omitted from this opinion.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943         Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023         Page: 4 of 13

        4                         Opinion of the Court                       22-12943

        to make movements toward Weaver until officers removed
        Weaver from the house. Weaver admitted that he hit the victim
        in the face, but also stated she had been “jumping on him.” Weaver
        told officers that he did not have any injuries.
               Officer Davis testified that, upon entering the home, he
        observed B.J. and Weaver “in a struggle,” and B.J. had Weaver in a
        headlock. Davis instructed them “to turn loose” and for Weaver
        to get on the ground, and they complied.
                The officer who interviewed Weaver testified that Weaver
        stated that B.J.’s mother had been having issues with B.J.’s behavior
        and her “backtalking” and “not listening.” 4 And on the day in
        question, B.J. had brought another girl home, who was 12 or 13
        years old, and the girl’s parents had called the police and reported
        her as a runaway.5 Weaver and B.J.’s mother told B.J that the girl
        had to go home. They drove B.J. and the girl toward the girl’s
        home, but upon seeing the police, they let B.J. and her friend out
        of the car down the block, and Weaver and B.J.’s mom returned to
        B.J.’s mother’s residence. However, B.J. and the girl showed back
        up at B.J.’s home in a car of a man that he did not recognize.
        Because the car and the man was unfamiliar, Weaver grabbed his
        girlfriend’s pistol and went outside. 6 When he came back inside, he

        4 The government played an audio recording of Weaver’s interview.

        5 Weaver told the officer that there was a warrant out for his arrest due to a

        probation violation, so he was trying to avoid any interactions with the police.
        Therefore, the situation with B.J.’s friend “made him uncomfortable.”
        6 The gun was not loaded.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023       Page: 5 of 13

        22-12943                 Opinion of the Court                              5

        and B.J. started to argue over the situation, and B.J. grabbed him.7
        He then “pushed her against the wall” and “she came back into his
        face” and swung at him, at which point he hit her in the face to
        keep her off of him. He forgot that the gun was in his hand. He
        stated he was going to defend himself, and he did not care if she
        was 16.
                B.J., who was 16 at the time of the incident, testified that, on
        the day in question, she had brought her friend home to braid her
        hair, but her friend did not have her family’s permission to go to
        B.J.’s house. Upon learning that her friend’s family had called the
        police and was concerned about her friend’s whereabouts, Weaver
        and her mother drove B.J. and her friend back to her friend’s
        grandmother’s house. The police were at her friend’s house, and
        Weaver did not want to be seen by the police. So B.J. and her friend
        got out of the car, and Weaver and her mother drove back home.
        Instead of walking her friend home, however, B.J. and her friend
        caught a ride with a stranger passing by back to B.J.’s house.
               B.J. and her friend were in B.J.’s room braiding hair when
        they heard an argument between Weaver and B.J.’s mother. When
        they heard someone say something about a gun, B.J. and her
        younger sister decided to call the police. According to B.J., Weaver
        got upset that she had called the police, held a gun up to her face,
        and pistol whipped her by hitting her in the face twice with the gun.

        7 In the audio recording of the interview, Weaver stated that B.J. called the

        police before they started arguing when Weaver was outside confronting the
        driver.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 08/11/2023     Page: 6 of 13

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12943

        After he hit her, they began physically fighting, and they were
        fighting when the police arrived. B.J. believed that Weaver was
        intoxicated or on drugs the night of the incident because “his eyes
        were red and he couldn’t keep his eyes still.”
               Weaver then called B.J.’s mother as a witness. She testified
        that B.J. has schizophrenia and anger issues, and that she is often
        non-compliant with her medications. However, she did not know
        whether or not B.J. was taking her medication at the time of the
        incident. She stated that her daughter has threatened her before,
        but did not elaborate as to the nature of the threats.
                B.J.’s mother explained that, on the day of the incident, she
        did not know that B.J.’s friend was “hiding” in the house, and the
        girl’s family had repeatedly called looking for her. They drove the
        girl home, but dropped B.J. and the girl off about “half a block”
        from the house because the police were at the house. She and
        Weaver headed home, but later B.J. and her friend showed back up
        at B.J.’s home, and B.J. seemed “mad, [and] angry.” A middle-aged
        man drove the girls back to B.J.’s house. After dropping the girls
        off, he just sat in the driveway and did not leave. B.J.’s mother and
        Weaver went outside to confront the man and tell him to leave. At
        some point, B.J.’s mother went inside and retrieved her gun. B.J.’s
        mother described the evening as “chaos on top of chaos.”
               After the man in the driveway left, B.J.’s mother and Weaver
        went inside and got in an argument over B.J.’s behavior. At some
        point, B.J. and Weaver started arguing about his dispute with her
        mother. B.J.’s mother did not see Weaver strike B.J. B.J.’s mother
USCA11 Case: 22-12943      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023      Page: 7 of 13

        22-12943               Opinion of the Court                          7

        confirmed that she kept in touch with Weaver following his arrest
        in this case. B.J.’s mother explained that she still cared about
        Weaver, but that she would not lie to keep him out of trouble and
        that she testified truthfully.
                On cross-examination, B.J.’s mother admitted that in
        recorded jail calls she told Weaver that the incident had “probably
        come from drugs” and that “he had a lot of problems going on in
        his life from drugs.”
              Following the witnesses’ testimony, the district court
        continued the sentencing hearing and allowed the parties to file
        supplemental briefing on the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) sentencing
        enhancement.
               In his supplemental brief, Weaver argued, in relevant part,
        that the enhancement did not apply because Weaver “acted in self-
        defense to repel B.J.’s physical attacks, and he was justified in using
        force under the circumstances.” The government in turn argued
        that Weaver had not acted in self-defense.
               When the sentencing hearing resumed, the district court
        stated that it did not find B.J.’s testimony credible, and it did not
        accept the testimony that Weaver was the aggressor.
        Nevertheless, the district court overruled Weaver’s objection to
        the four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) sentencing enhancement,
        concluding that Weaver used more force than was reasonably
        necessary to defend himself, such that his self-defense argument
        failed under Alabama law. Thus, the court adopted the PSI and
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023       Page: 8 of 13

        8                        Opinion of the Court                     22-12943

        imposed a bottom of the guidelines sentence of 57 months’
        imprisonment to be followed by 2 years’ supervised release.
                Following the sentencing hearing, the district court issued
        written findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the
        sentencing enhancement. Specifically, the district court found
        both that B.J.’s version of events and Weaver’s statement that he
        forgot that the gun was in his hand when he struck B.J. were not
        credible. 8 Rather, the court found B.J.’s mother’s testimony
        credible. The court found that B.J. was “responsible for the events
        that led to her fight with Mr. Weaver,” citing the fact that she
        brought a young girl home with her without the girl’s family’s
        permission and compounded the situation by not taking the girl
        home once Weaver and B.J.’s mother dropped them off near the
        girl’s house and instead returned home with the girl after obtaining
        a ride from a stranger. The court further found that B.J. “instigated
        her fight with Mr. Weaver” and that Weaver “intended to strike
        the victim to defend himself from her aggression.” However, the
        court found that Weaver “used more force than he could
        reasonably believe was necessary when he picked up the unloaded
        gun and struck the victim with it.” The court noted that there was
        no evidence that 16-year-old B.J. was capable of causing serious
        bodily harm to Weaver, which meant that he could not
        “reasonably believe that he had to strike [her] in the face with a gun

        8 The district court also found that, although there was evidence that Weaver

        had issues with drugs, there was no credible evidence that Weaver was
        intoxicated at the time of the incident.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 08/11/2023        Page: 9 of 13

        22-12943                  Opinion of the Court                              9

        to defend himself from such harm.” Therefore, the court
        concluded that the government established that Weaver
        committed second-degree assault under Alabama law and that he
        would not be able to establish self-defense “because he used more
        force [than] he could reasonably believe necessary to defend
        himself against the assault the victim initiated.”
               Weaver timely appealed.
                                      II.     Discussion
               Weaver argues that the district court clearly erred in
        imposing the four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for
        possession of the firearm in connection with another felony offense
        where the evidence showed that Weaver acted in self-defense, and
        self-defense is a complete defense to the offense of assault under
        Alabama law. 9 He maintains that the district court erred in
        concluding that he used more force than was reasonably necessary
        to defend himself because the amount of force he used did not stop
        the attack, as evidenced by the fact that B.J. had Weaver in a
        headlock when police arrived.
               “[W]e review a district court’s determinations of law de
        novo and its findings of fact for clear error. A district court’s
        determination that a defendant possessed a gun “‘in connection
        with’ another felony offense is a finding of fact that we review for

        9 Weaver does not dispute that, absent his claim of self-defense, the evidence

        established by a preponderance that felony offense of second-degree assault
        under Alabama law.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023     Page: 10 of 13

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12943

        clear error.” United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11th Cir.
        2019) (quotations omitted). “For a factual finding to be clearly
        erroneous, this court, after reviewing all of the evidence, must be
        left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
        committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137
        (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted).
               For a factual finding to be clearly erroneous, we must be left
        with the definite and firm conviction that the district court made a
        mistake. United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016).
        Additionally, “[a] factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous when
        the factfinder [chooses] between two permissible views of
        evidence.” United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1317 (11th Cir.
        2015).
               The guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement if the
        defendant “used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with
        another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). “[A]nother
        felony offense” includes state offenses punishable by imprisonment
        for a term of more than one year, regardless of whether the
        defendant was charged with that offense. United States v. Smith, 480
        F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). The government bears the burden
        of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts
        necessary to support the sentencing enhancement. Id.
               Under Alabama law, a person commits second-degree
        assault and can be punished by a term of imprisonment greater
        than one year if he causes physical injury to any person by means
        of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument with the intent to
USCA11 Case: 22-12943        Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 08/11/2023         Page: 11 of 13

        22-12943                   Opinion of the Court                               11

        cause physical injury. Ala. Code § 13A-6-21(a)(2), (b) (providing
        that second-degree assault is a Class C felony); id. § 13A-5-6(a)(3)
        (explaining that Class C felonies in Alabama by “not more than 10
        years or less than one year and one day”). However, Alabama law
        also provides that “[a] person is justified in using physical force
        upon another person in order to defend himself or herself . . . from
        what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use
        of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may
        use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be
        necessary for the purpose.”10 Id. § 13A-3-23(a).
              Here, the district court did not clearly err by finding that
        Weaver used more force than he could have reasonably believed
        was necessary to defend himself against B.J.’s attack. Based on the
        permissible views of the evidence of the altercation between B.J.
        and Weaver, notwithstanding the fact that Weaver’s use of force
        did not stop B.J.,11 the district court did not clearly err in finding

        10 We have not addressed whether an affirmative defense to the underlying

        felony that forms the basis of the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement would
        necessarily negate the sentencing enhancement. However, as Weaver points
        out, at least two other circuits have suggested that an affirmative defense to
        the underlying felony offense proven by a preponderance of the evidence
        would negate the sentencing enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Mattox,
        27 F.4th 668, 676–77 (8th Cir. 2022); United States v. Price, 16 F.4th 1263, 1266
        (7th Cir. 2021). Furthermore, the government agrees that, if Weaver acted in
        self-defense, then the enhancement would not apply. Therefore, for purposes
        of this opinion, we assume without deciding that, if Weaver acted in self-
        defense, the sentencing enhancement would be inapplicable.
        11 Weaver makes much of the fact that Weaver’s use of force did not stop B.J.’s

        attack as evidenced by the fact that B.J. had Weaver in a headlock when the
USCA11 Case: 22-12943         Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 08/11/2023          Page: 12 of 13

        12                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12943

        that it was an unreasonable use of force for Weaver, an adult male
        in his thirties, to pistol-whip a 16-year-old unarmed girl in order to
        defend himself from her physical altercation.12 This finding is

        police arrived. But self-defense is not measured based on conduct that
        occurred after the use of force. Thus, whether or not the use of force stopped
        the attack is irrelevant to whether the use of force was reasonable. Rather, in
        Alabama “[a] person is justified in using physical force upon another person in
        order to defend himself or herself . . . from what he or she reasonably believes
        to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person,
        and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes
        to be necessary for the purpose.” Ala. Code § 13A-3-23(a). Thus, the inquiry
        focuses on whether the use of force was reasonable in light of the
        circumstances that preceded the use of force (i.e., B.J.’s conduct before Weaver
        struck her in the face with the gun) not the circumstances that followed the
        use of force.
        12 To the extent that Weaver argues for the first time on appeal that the district

        court added a requirement not listed in Alabama’s self-defense statute—that
        Weaver had to reasonably believe that B.J. was capable of causing him serious
        bodily harm for his actions to be justified—Weaver failed to raise that
        objection in the district court, and, therefore, we review for plain error. See
        e.g., United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2006) (“When the
        appealing party does not clearly state the grounds for an objection in the
        district court, we are limited to reviewing for plain error.”); see also Wilson, 788
        F.3d at 1318 (applying plain error review for sentencing argument raised for
        first time on appeal). The district court committed no error, plain or
        otherwise. Contrary to Weaver’s argument, a review of the district court’s
        findings of fact and conclusions of law confirms that the district court did not
        add a requirement to Alabama’s self-defense statute that Weaver had to
        believe that B.J. was capable of causing him serious bodily harm in order for
        his actions to be justified.
USCA11 Case: 22-12943     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 08/11/2023    Page: 13 of 13

        22-12943              Opinion of the Court                       13

        further supported by the fact that Weaver did not suffer any
        injuries from the attack while B.J. was seriously injured. Thus, the
        district court did not err in rejecting Weaver’s self-defense
        argument and applying the four-level sentencing enhancement.
        See Wilson, 788 F.3d at 1317 (“A factual finding cannot be clearly
        erroneous when the factfinder [chooses] between two permissible
        views of evidence.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
              AFFIRMED.