United States v. Gregory Gillespie
713 F. App'x 471
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gillespie, a convicted felon, fled a traffic stop in a Ford Explorer; when the vehicle stopped he exited from the right rear with a gun in his hand and was struck by Officer Williams’ patrol car; dash-cam footage captured ~3 seconds of the encounter.
- Gillespie pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); base offense level 14 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6)(A).
- The PSR added a +4 enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony (Tenn. aggravated assault) and a +6 official-victim enhancement under § 3A1.2(c)(1); Gillespie objected to both.
- Officer Williams testified that Gillespie made eye contact and brandished/pointed the gun at him off-camera; the dash-cam shows Gillespie holding the gun upside-down, not pointing at the officer, and being struck almost immediately.
- The district court credited the officer’s off-camera testimony, applied both enhancements, produced a Guidelines range of 57–71 months, but imposed a 120-month sentence (statutory maximum) after considering § 3553(a) factors.
- The Sixth Circuit majority reversed the enhancements, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing; a dissent would have affirmed both the enhancements and the 120-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gillespie committed Tennessee aggravated assault (display/use of a deadly weapon causing reasonable fear) | Gillespie: video shows he held the gun upside-down while fleeing and did not point or otherwise intentionally cause fear; mere possession while fleeing is insufficient | Government/District Ct.: officer credibly testified Gillespie made eye contact and pointed the gun off-camera; display of a weapon can satisfy the statute | Held: Reversed — district court clearly erred; video undermined officer’s testimony and facts do not show intentional/knowing conduct to cause fear, so aggravated assault not proven |
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm in connection with another felony) | Gillespie: enhancement depends on aggravated assault finding; without it enhancement is improper | Government: enhancement supported by officer testimony and video/credibility findings | Held: Reversed — enhancement improperly applied because aggravated assault finding was erroneous |
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) (official-victim +6) | Gillespie: official-victim enhancement depends on aggravated-assault finding; it cannot apply if assault not proven | Government: same facts support official-victim enhancement | Held: Reversed — official-victim enhancement inapplicable without aggravated assault |
| Whether the above-Guidelines 120-month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable | Gillespie: sentence procedurally unreasonable because it was based on a miscalculated Guidelines range and a clearly erroneous factual finding; remand required | Government: even if enhancements were wrong, any error was harmless because district court intended an above-Guidelines sentence to protect the public | Held: Vacated and remanded — sentence procedurally unreasonable; error in Guidelines calculation likely affected § 3553(a) analysis and was not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court on Guidelines enhancement factual findings)
- United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (credibility findings are entitled to deference but can be overturned when contradicted by objective evidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Richardson, 510 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements required to apply § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement)