United States v. Dwayne Fields
608 F. App'x 806
11th Cir.2015Background
- Fields was charged in an 11‑count superseding indictment and pled guilty to: dealing firearms without a license (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A)), false statements to a licensed dealer, possession/sale of a stolen firearm, and possession of an unregistered short‑barreled rifle (NFA); no plea agreement.
- ATF/APD undercover operation: over ~30 transactions from Jan–June 2012 in which Fields and co‑defendants sold ~38 firearms and ammunition to an undercover officer; one gun had an obliterated serial number and one short‑barrel rifle required NFA registration but was unregistered.
- Fields performed a straw purchase (paid $250) at a gun store and repeatedly offered to straw‑purchase and broker sales; he acknowledged believing the buyer was a convicted felon and heard talk of reshipping guns to California and supplying drug traffickers.
- PSI applied multiple Guidelines enhancements: +4 for an altered/obliterated serial number (§ 2K2.1(b)(4)), +4 for trafficking (§ 2K2.1(b)(5)), +4 for use/possession in connection with another felony (§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)); Fields received a two‑level acceptance reduction, resulting in offense level 36 and Guidelines range 188–235 months; district court varied downward to 120 months (10 years).
- On appeal Fields challenged the Guidelines enhancements, denial of a minor‑role reduction and the court’s refusal to grant the additional § 3E1.1(b) reduction sua sponte; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence but remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment (misstated statutory citation for Count 7).
Issues
| Issue | Fields' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) for altered/obliterated serial number | Enhancement unconstitutional and inapplicable because Fields lacked knowledge and only briefly possessed the gun | Guideline and commentary impose the enhancement regardless of defendant's knowledge | Affirmed: enhancement proper; commentary authorizes application without mens rea (Richardson controls) |
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(5) trafficking enhancement | Enhancement cannot apply where transfer was only to an undercover officer | Commentary requires only that defendant knew or had reason to believe transferee’s possession would be unlawful; Fields believed buyer was a felon and heard plans to resell to CA | Affirmed: trafficking enhancement properly applied |
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (connection to another felony) | Government failed to prove underlying conduct (e.g., planned robbery, marijuana sale) were actual felonies | Enhancement applies where firearm facilitated or had potential to facilitate another felony; no controlling precedent compels reversal under plain‑error review | Affirmed: no plain error shown in imposing enhancement |
| § 3B1.2(b) minor‑role reduction | Fields claims he was a mere broker/middleman and thus a minor participant | Fields organized numerous transactions (≈30) and was necessary to scheme; broker role does not automatically qualify as minor | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err denying minor‑role reduction |
| § 3E1.1(b) one‑level reduction sua sponte | Court should have granted the extra acceptance point despite government refusal; refusal was unconstitutional retaliation | Commentary requires a government motion for § 3E1.1(b); no record of unconstitutional motive | Affirmed: court properly declined to grant § 3E1.1(b) sua sponte; no evidence of unconstitutional motive |
| Substantive reasonableness of 120‑month sentence | Sentence unreasonable given minimal criminal history and long undercover operation duration | District court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors and imposed a below‑Guidelines 10‑year sentence | Affirmed: sentence was substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richardson, 8 F.3d 769 (11th Cir. 1993) (upheld § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement absent mens rea because it does not create a separate crime)
- United States v. Contreras, 739 F.3d 592 (11th Cir. 2014) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative when interpreting the Guidelines)
- United States v. Handy, 570 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (district‑court decision declining to apply enhancement where defendant lacked knowledge of stolen gun; not binding here)
- United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (standard for determining role reductions under § 3B1.2)
- United States v. Lejarde‑Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain‑error review requires controlling precedent to find an unsettled legal issue plain error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)