United States v. Donald Wilson, 75 F.4th 633

On June 6, 2021, Donald Wilson fired nine shots from an F-150 at a moving, occupied Jeep, striking the driver; the incident was recorded and shell casings were recovered.
Wilson, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty in federal court to possession of ammunition by a felon; the PSR recommended a 4‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using ammunition in connection with another felony (alleged Ohio felonious assault).
Wilson disputed the enhancement, asserting he acted in self‑defense and introduced witness audio; the government argued no credible evidence showed anyone else fired at Wilson.
The district court rejected Wilson’s self‑defense claim in oral remarks (stating a felon cannot lawfully shoot back) but made no explicit factual findings resolving the contested self‑defense issue; it applied the firearm enhancement and imposed a 46‑month sentence (above the 21–27 month guideline range).
The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make the factual findings required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B) and erroneously refused to consider self‑defense as a legal matter despite circuit precedent allowing a felon to raise that defense against the enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant’s claim of self‑defense precludes application of the §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement	Wilson: Self‑defense negates commission of the underlying felony (felonious assault); if he meets burden of production, government must disprove self‑defense	Government: Enhancement applies because the guideline counts any felony conduct (charged or not) and a felon cannot lawfully possess ammunition to claim justification	Court: Self‑defense can be raised to contest the enhancement; the district court must make factual findings whether Wilson met his production burden and whether the government disproved self‑defense
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to make factual findings on the contested self‑defense issue	Wilson: District court failed to resolve a controverted matter and make findings by a preponderance as required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B)	Government: District court concluded evidence did not support self‑defense and therefore the enhancement stood	Court: Procedural error—district court must affirmatively rule on disputed PSR matters with factual findings; failure to do so vacates the sentence and requires remand for resentencing

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standard; procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (a felon convicted of possession may nonetheless raise self‑defense to challenge a §2K2.1 firearm enhancement)
United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007) (district courts must rule on disputed portions of the PSR and make factual findings)
United States v. Shannon, 803 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 2015) (failure to find facts by a preponderance on contested matters is error)
United States v. Treadway, 328 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2003) (literal compliance with Rule 32(i)(3)(B) improves sentence accuracy and clarity)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2002) (elements of Ohio self‑defense: no fault in creating situation; bona fide belief of imminent danger; no duty to retreat)