United States v. Daniels
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24344
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Daniels, a felon, was convicted of being in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- A firearm connected to Daniels was alleged to have been used in connection with another offense, with trial testimony relied upon by the government.
- During police response to an armed disturbance, officers found 13 .40-caliber rounds on Daniels' person; Hayes possessed the firearm later recovered.
- Hayes testified Daniels owned the gun and had previously shot at him; Hayes admitted retrieving the gun to shoot Daniels.
- At sentencing, the district court initially anticipated 216 months but deferred final sentence pending transcript review.
- A second sentencing hearing resulted, with enhanced calculations under ACCA and 4B1.4, yielding 262–327 months range, but the court varied to 216 months and five years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §922(g)(1) | State that Daniels knowingly possessed firearm; Hayes' testimony supports knowledge. | Hayes' testimony is only link; implausible that Hayes would lie against Daniels. | Sufficient evidence supported knowing possession; conviction affirmed. |
| ACCA applicability based on prior burglaries | Three separate burglaries occur on different dates/locations, qualifying as separate predicate offenses. | Burglaries part of a spree; not three separate convictions. | Three separate burglaries on different occasions qualify Daniels as an armed career criminal. |
| Acceptance of responsibility reduction | Daniels admitted possession; supports reduction. | He went to trial, denying guilt; not entitled to reduction. | No acceptance of responsibility reduction; not clearly demonstrated. |
| Two sentencing hearings and final sentence | Second hearing permissible; transcript review warranted finalization. | Second hearing improper after purported final sentence. | District court did not impose a final sentence at first hearing; second hearing proper. |
| Enhancement under §2K2.1(b)(6) and ACCA interplay | Evidence supports firearm in connection with another offense; supports enhancements. | Challenge to base offense level and use of enhancements. | Court used 4B1.4 to set offense level; analysis upheld; need not resolve the §2K2.1(b)(6) issue fully. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Horsman, 114 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 1997) (elements for §922(g)(1) and interstate commerce requirement)
- United States v. Adams, 37 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 1994) (separate burglary offenses for ACCA purposes when on different dates/locations)
- United States v. Hamell, 3 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1993) (distinct criminal episodes for ACCA when different victims/locations)
- United States v. Gibson, 928 F.2d 250 (8th Cir. 1991) (burglaries over a short span can be separate offenses for ACCA)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of whether an offense is a violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Ngo, 132 F.3d 1231 (8th Cir. 1997) (guideline acceptance of responsibility considerations; rare situations)
- United States v. Mack, 343 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2003) (guidelines de novo standard and factual findings reviewed for clear error)