Court Opinion

ID: 9392406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 19:00:28.508923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.660679
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0210n.06

                                         Case No. 22-1492

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                                                   FILED
                                                      )                      May 04, 2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                      )
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                            )
                                                      )      ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v.                                                    )      STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
                                                      )      THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
STEVEN CHAVEZ PHILLIPS-HALL,                          )      MICHIGAN
       Defendant-Appellant.                           )
                                                      )                                   OPINION

Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

       THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Steven Phillips-Hall pled guilty to firearms offenses. At

sentencing, the district court imposed a four-level enhancement, finding that Phillips-Hall

participated in a shooting three days before his arrest. Because that finding was not clearly

erroneous, we affirm Phillips-Hall’s sentence.

                                                 I.

       Where was Steven Phillips-Hall at 11:56 p.m. on August 6, 2021? That’s the question at

the heart of this case, and the parties dispute the answer. But the following is all undisputed.

       First, in March 2021, officers arrested Phillips-Hall and obtained a search warrant for his

apartment. They found a loaded Glock Model 22 .40-caliber pistol, a loaded Smith & Wesson SD

9 VE 9mm pistol, and ammunition for both.
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall

       Second, in June 2021, Phillips-Hall was involved in a parking-lot shootout. Phillips-Hall

and a group of suspected Bemis gang members (Phillips-Hall himself is known as “Bemis Steve”)

exchanged shots with suspected members of their rival gang, Highland. Stray bullets damaged

property in the area, and a passer-by received a bullet wound to the head.

       Third, on August 6 at 11:56 p.m., someone fired shots outside the Metro Bar, where

Highland gang members were gathered. Four people were injured. After police arrived on the

scene, a security guard told them that he had seen a man with a gun running away. He described

the man as “an approximately 30-year-old black male, standing approximately 5'7" to 5'9" in

height, with a ‘skinny, muscular’ build.” R. 58-1, Pg. ID 333. He later added that he “thought that

person’s build was similar to Phillips-Hall but he did not know for sure.” Id. at 336. A few days

after the shooting, officers found ten shell casings across the street from the bar.

       Fourth, just days after the Metro Bar shooting, officers arrested Phillips-Hall following a

chase and a struggle. They found a stolen and loaded Sarsilmaz (SAR) CM9 9mm handgun in his

bag. Further investigation revealed that the SAR had fired nine of the ten casings found at the

scene of the Metro Bar shooting. The tenth came from a gun owned by another member of the

Bemis gang, whom Phillips-Hall had called less than a week before that shooting.

       Fifth, cell-phone records revealed that about a minute and a half after the Metro Bar

shooting, Phillips-Hall received a call that used a cell tower that covered an area close to the Metro

Bar. When confronted with this evidence, however, Phillips-Hall claimed he was at his sister’s

house all night, which was also within the same cell-tower coverage area. But his other cell-phone

records show that his phone traveled all over the city that same evening.

       Based on these facts, the government charged Phillips-Hall with knowingly possessing

three guns as a felon: the Glock, the Smith & Wesson, and the SAR. He pled guilty to possession

                                                -2-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall

of the Glock and the Smith & Wesson. The presentence report (PSR) recommended a four-level

sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with both the parking-lot and the

Metro Bar shootings. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Phillips-Hall raised several objections,

claiming that he shouldn’t be held accountable for either shooting.

       At sentencing, the district court agreed that Phillips-Hall’s sentence shouldn’t be enhanced

for his participation in the parking-lot shooting because “[o]ne could make an argument” that he

was acting in self-defense. R. 65, Pg. ID 382. But the court decided that sufficient evidence linked

Phillips-Hall to the Metro Bar shooting. So the court applied the enhancement and sentenced

Phillips-Hall to 115 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Phillips-Hall now

appeals his sentence, arguing the court didn’t have enough evidence establishing his involvement

in the Metro Bar shooting.

                                                II.

       The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a four-level sentencing enhancement if the defendant

“used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).    The government bears the burden of establishing facts supporting the

enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Shanklin, 924 F.3d 905,

919 (6th Cir. 2019). Here, all agree that if Phillips-Hall was the person who fired the SAR pistol

at the Metro Bar, this enhancement would apply. The district court concluded Phillips-Hall was

that person, and we review that factual determination for clear error. See United States v. Taylor,

648 F.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011).

       To succeed on clear-error review, Phillips-Hall must shoulder a heavy burden. See United

States v. Reinberg, 62 F.4th 266, 268–69 (6th Cir. 2023). He must leave us with a “definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564,

                                               -3-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall

573 (1985). Phillips-Hall hasn’t done that. Consider the evidence supporting the enhancement.

First, three days after the shooting, Phillips-Hall was caught carrying the gun that fired nine shots

at the Metro Bar. And police later learned that Phillips-Hall knew the man whose gun fired the

tenth shot. Second, Phillips-Hall had a likely motive: to harm the rival gang that tried to kill him

and other Bemis gang members a few months prior. Third, Phillips-Hall lied to police about where

he was during the evening of the shooting. Fourth, cell records confirmed Phillips-Hall could have

been near the bar immediately after the shooting. Fifth, a security guard described a man who he

thought matched Phillips-Hall’s description running from the scene. Taken together, these facts

provide ample support for the conclusion that Phillips-Hall was involved in the Metro Bar

shooting.

       Phillips-Hall presents three counterarguments, but none establishes clear error.

       First, Phillips-Hall highlights two details of the security guard’s description of the man

fleeing the scene that don’t match Phillips-Hall’s description. For one, the guard described the

man he saw running as being between 5'7" and 5'9", but Phillips-Hall is taller. For another, the

security guard didn’t mention that the man had a limp, but Phillips-Hall has one. Yet these small

inconsistencies don’t show clear error. Rather, we “defer to the district court’s finding about what

transpired” as long as that finding is “plausible on the record as a whole.” United States v. Estrada-

Gonzalez, 32 F.4th 607, 614 (6th Cir. 2022). And here, as outlined above, it was.

       Second, Phillips-Hall argues that the cell-tower data from soon after the shooting support

his story more than the government’s. Specifically, he claims he couldn’t have been at the Metro

Bar at the time of the shooting because the cell tower’s coverage area doesn’t cover the bar itself—

rather, it starts a few blocks away. But that doesn’t undermine the district court’s analysis either.

After all, Phillips-Hall didn’t receive a call until about 90 seconds after the shooting. And the

                                                -4-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall

government presented evidence showing Phillips-Hall could have driven from the bar to the

coverage area in less than 90 seconds.1        So the government at least provided a plausible

interpretation of the cell-tower data. And when faced with two plausible interpretations of the

evidence, we defer to the district court’s choice between them. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574.

       Third, Phillips-Hall analogizes to another case, United States v. Hatcher, 947 F.3d 383 (6th

Cir. 2020), in which investigators also used shell casings to tie the defendant to a shooting. But

Hatcher addressed the doctrine of “unfair surprise,” which doesn’t apply here. See id. at 389–94.

True, Hatcher went on to criticize the lack of evidence supporting the use of the shooting. But the

Hatcher panel only addressed that issue to “provid[e] clarity on remand.” Id. at 395. To the extent

that discussion didn’t contribute to the court’s holding, it doesn’t bind us. See Wright v. Spaulding,

939 F.3d 695, 701 (6th Cir. 2019).

       Regardless, Hatcher’s analysis is distinguishable. The sentencing court in Hatcher used

shell casings to find that the defendant participated in the shooting—even though the government

“did not even allege that [he] was involved.” Id. at 395. Instead, the government claimed merely

that the defendant’s involvement “was a ‘possibility.’” Id. What’s more, the casings only came

to the court through an agent’s unsworn testimony. Id. No other evidence linked the defendant to

the scene. Id. Here, by contrast, the government introduced various pieces of reliable evidence

connecting Phillips-Hall and his gun to the Metro Bar shooting.

1
  Phillips-Hall also points out that the security guard described the suspect fleeing away from the
cellular coverage area. But again, that doesn’t make the district court’s conclusion implausible.
For example, the man the guard saw might’ve been the second shooter. And even if the guard
truly witnessed Phillips-Hall, he might’ve simply run around the corner, gotten in a car, and driven
back the other way. Absent evidence foreclosing these alternative and plausible theories, Phillips-
Hall fails to show clear error. Estrada-Gonzalez, 32 F.4th at 614.
                                                -5-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall

                                *              *              *

       Because Phillips-Hall hasn’t shown that it was clearly erroneous for the district court to

conclude that he committed the Metro Bar shooting, we affirm.

                                              -6-