United States v. Cowan Godfrey, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13373

Background

Godfrey, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after he retrieved a handgun and fired multiple rounds into a crowded Dubuque, Iowa park where families and young children were present; no one was injured.
Surveillance video and recovered shell casings showed Godfrey fired toward the area where two rival-gang members stood; physical evidence contradicted Godfrey’s claim that he fired into the sky or that others had fired first.
The PSR initially computed a total offense level of 15 (including a 3-level acceptance reduction); the Government sought an attempted-murder cross-reference (or an upward departure), which would raise the offense level substantially.
At sentencing the district court denied Godfrey the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (raising the total offense level to 18), calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 30–37 months (Criminal History II), but varied upward under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed the statutory maximum of 120 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
The court also imposed a special supervised-release condition banning alcohol use and entry into bars/taverns, relying on Godfrey’s documented history of substantial alcohol and marijuana use and his request for substance-abuse treatment.
Godfrey appealed, arguing procedural errors (burden-shifting on self-defense, erroneous denial of acceptance credit, failure to consider/explain Guidelines), substantive unreasonableness of the 120-month variance, and that the alcohol restriction was improper.

Issues

Issue	Godfrey's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Burden of proof on self-defense at sentencing	Court shifted burden to Godfrey to prove self-defense by saying he must “find the evidence.”	Court’s comment reflected that video evidence contradicted Godfrey’s claim; prosecution had already presented evidence disproving self-defense.	No plain error; comment did not show court believed Godfrey bore burden.
Acceptance-of-responsibility reduction denial	Godfrey argued his objections to the PSR were non-frivolous and supported by witness statements and state pleas.	Court found Godfrey repeatedly and falsely denied relevant conduct shown by video and officer testimony; denial within discretion.	Affirmed: no clear error in denying the reduction.
Consideration of Guidelines and explanation for large variance	Godfrey argued court ignored Guidelines and failed to adequately explain the 400%+ variance.	Court computed and discussed Guidelines, explained it considered §3553(a) factors and provided a reasoned basis (premeditation, danger to women/children, escalation).	No plain error; explanation adequate and permitted a significant variance.
Alcohol ban as supervised-release condition	Godfrey said no evidence linked alcohol to offense and record lacked current dependence showing cross-addiction risk.	Court relied on documented heavy past alcohol and marijuana use, Godfrey’s request for treatment, and permissibility of bans for recovering substance users.	No abuse of discretion; condition reasonably related to §3553(a).

Key Cases Cited

Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (sets two-step abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
Azure v. United States, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (government must prove absence of defense at sentencing)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (district court must consult Guidelines and consider them)
Mahone v. United States, 688 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court denial of acceptance credit reviewed for clear error; false denials of relevant conduct justify denial)
Hummingbird v. United States, 743 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 2014) (percentage deviation from Guidelines insufficient alone to show unreasonableness)
Woodall v. United States, 782 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing special supervised-release conditions)