United States v. Darrin Soza
874 F.3d 884
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Darrin Soza pleaded guilty to possessing two AK-47 rifles with altered/obliterated serial numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k) and 924(a)(1)(B).
- The PSR treated Soza as a "prohibited person" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) based on (1) a 2012 North Carolina DWI conviction and (2) an active 2014 probation-violator arrest warrant, producing a base offense level of 20 and total offense level initially 34 (later reduced to 29 at sentencing).
- PSR assessed six criminal-history points (including two points for committing the instant offense while on probation), placing Soza in Criminal History Category III.
- At sentencing the district court overruled Soza's objection that he was not a "prohibited person," granted some guideline adjustments, but imposed the statutory maximum 60-month sentence (below the Guidelines range produced by the PSR’s calculations).
- On appeal Soza challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence that he was a "fugitive from justice" under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2) (the sole remaining basis for prohibited-person status), and (2) sufficiency of the record to support the PSR’s criminal-history points.
- The government later moved to supplement the record with (a) the 2012 DWI judgment and (b) the probation officer’s sworn written statement describing the probation violations; the court allowed supplementation for appellate consideration but left admissibility on remand to the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Soza was a "prohibited person" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) via § 922(g)(2) ("fugitive from justice") | Govt: The active probation violator warrant shows Soza was a fugitive from justice | Soza: The single-page warrant lacked the required evidence of fleeing to avoid prosecution (no written statement in the record) | Preserved and reviewed for clear error; district court’s finding was not adequately supported by the record before it, so sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing (district court may consider supplemental evidence) |
| Whether proof of "fugitive" status requires intent or knowledge | Govt: No separate mens rea requirement beyond statutory definition; intent may be inferred | Soza: "Fugitive" requires purposeful flight to avoid prosecution; warrant alone insufficient to prove intent | Court held § 922(g)(2) incorporates the § 921 definition of "fugitive," which contemplates purposeful flight (intent to avoid prosecution); government failed to prove that intent from the record before the district court |
| Whether the district court could consider supplemental evidence on appeal (probation officer’s statement) | Govt: Supplementation should be permitted; evidence would establish intent | Soza: Government had burden at sentencing; should not get a "second bite" on appeal | Court allowed appellate supplementation for purposes of review but remanded so district court can first decide whether to admit/consider the supplemental evidence on remand |
| Sufficiency of the PSR-based criminal-history calculation (including 2012 DWI and probation status) | Soza: If warrant insufficient for enhancement, it likewise cannot support criminal-history points | Govt: PSR and attached records adequately support criminal-history entries; defendant did not rebut PSR | Court affirmed the PSR criminal-history calculations: defendant failed to present rebuttal evidence and had not preserved the specific challenge (reviewed for plain error and not shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for guideline interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1988) (no mens rea element required for § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Butler, 637 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying Dancy to reject mens rea requirement for § 922(g)(6))
- United States v. Ballentine, 4 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing knowledge/intent standards for "fugitive" status)
- United States v. Spillane, 913 F.2d 1079 (4th Cir. 1990) (defining "fugitive" to require knowledge of pending charges)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 122 F.3d 1383 (11th Cir. 1997) (requiring intent to avoid prosecution to establish fugitive status)
- United States v. Reasor, 541 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2008) (reliability and adoption of PSR findings at sentencing)