Court Opinion

ID: 9491712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:21:33.133759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:54.221902
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the panel’s opinion that affirms the District Court’s two-level increase in the offense level for obstruction of justice. However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the four-level increase for possession of firearms in connection with another felony pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) 2K2.1(b)(5).
The panel treats the issue of whether there is “another felony offense” as an issue of law. I believe that -whether defendant used or possessed any firearms in connection with another felony offense is first a question of fact.
Defendant was charged with committing three firearms violations on November 17, 1996: 1) theft of firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (Count One); 2) possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(j) (Count Two); and 3) possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Count Three). Defendant pled guilty to Counts Two and Three on April 7,1997.
During the plea colloquy, the District Court asked defendant to explain his role in the offense and why he was pleading guilty. Defendant stated that he had run into some acquaintances from Detroit at a nightclub in Nashville. The acquaintances told him that them car was full of stolen firearms and electronic equipment and asked whether he would load and transport the property in his car back to Detroit. Defendant recounted his involvement as follows:
Sanders: So they approached me and asked me what am I going to do if I help them do something. Meaning the rest of these goods that they had already gotten because their car was already full and they wanted to unload their car and go back [to the pawn shop].... I pulled up, threw the stuff in the car, loaded up and pulled out and left.
The Court: Where did you go?
Sanders: We went back to the hotel they were staying at, because they wanted to leave .... so back to their hotel room we talked for a minute, saying leave now, you get back [to Detroit], I call you back, separate everything, give you some money....
The Court: Then what happened?
Sanders: That’s when we parted company.
The Court: Then what happened?
Sanders: Well, we made all the way to Ohio and a trooper pulled behind us, for about a mile, and pulled me over.
*404The Court: Alright. Is there anything else to this?
Sanders: No.
After the plea hearing, defendant submitted to a polygraph examination as required by the plea agreement. The results of the test indicated that he had been deceptive regarding his participation in the burglary and theft. Defendant then admitted that he had lied in previous statements. He confessed that he had accompanied his acquaintances to the Household Pawn Shop following their initial burglary of the premises. He entered the pawn shop through the roof, proceeded to the office area, and stood on a filing cabinet. There, defendant received items handed to him by others which he then passed up through the hole in the roof. He stated that he passed up four or five armloads of items, including a gym bag containing firearms. Defendant explained that he withheld this information during the plea colloquy because he feared that admitting the extent of his involvement “would be worse for him as far as the charge was concerned.”
Defendant argues that U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) applies only when “a defendant uses or possesses a firearm in an offense not the same as the offense for which he stands in court” and that no separate felony existed in this case. However, the record reveals otherwise. Defendant pled guilty to possession of stolen firearms and possession of firearms by a convicted felon; these are the only offenses for which he stands in court. The burglary of the Household Pawn Shop, to which defendant admitted, constitutes the other felony offense.1 Since defendant clearly possessed the firearms during the commission of a separate felony offense, the burglary, I now turn to whether the District Court was justified in finding that possession was “in connection with” that offense.
A firearm is used or possessed “in connection with” an offense if the weapon facilitated or potentially facilitated the felonious conduct, or emboldened the defendant during the felonious conduct. United States v. Spurgeon, 117 F.3d 641, 643-44 (2nd Cir. 1997); United States v. Wyatt, 102 F.3d 241, 247 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003-04 (4th Cir.1996); United States v. Collins, 90 F.3d 1420, 1430 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Thompson, 32 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Gomez-Arrellano, 5 F.3d 464, 466-67 (10th Cir.1993). Cf. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 511-13 (5th Cir.1997) (Finding that firearms stolen during burglary were possessed “in connection with” that offense under the possession test, which is less stringent than the facilitation or emboldenment standard). In this case, the District Court specifically determined that defendant’s possession of the stolen firearms emboldened him during the burglary. As this factual finding was not clearly erroneous, the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony was, I believe, appropriate.
The panel argues that the two-level enhancement for possession of a gun that has been stolen changes the crime with which defendant has been charged into a burglary case. U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(4) applies whether defendant stole the gun or someone else did. U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1(b)(6) applies when, as here, the guns were stolen by defendant in another felony and defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the commission of that other offense.
Application Note 14 to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 provides:
Under subsection (c)(1), the offense level for the underlying offense (which may be a federal, state, or local offense) is to be determined under § 2X1.1 (Attempt, Solicitation, or Conspiracy) or, if death results, under the most analogous guideline from Chapter Two, Part A, Subpart 1 (Homicide).
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n. 14.
I would, however, find that to increase defendant’s offense level two points because the guns are stolen and then to increase it four more because he stole the guns does *405strike me as double counting. I would, therefore, reduce the overall increase of six points by two points, to arrive at a total ^ , J , „ i. , ’ enhancement of four levels.

. One might argue that the burglary cannot serve as another felony offense because it preceded the theft, and therefore possession, of the firearms. However, the burglary was a continuous offense which ended only when Sanders and his acquaintances departed from the pawn shop. See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 510-511 (5th Cir.1997).