United States v. Holm
745 F.3d 938
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Holm pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)); plea agreement included a non-binding stipulation that § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement did not apply.
- Police executed a warrant at Holm’s residence and later stopped him; they found a loaded .38 revolver on his person and about 0.5g methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in his possession.
- PSR recommended a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm possessed in connection with another felony); Holm timely objected to the enhancement at sentencing.
- District court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm facilitated (or had potential to facilitate) the meth possession, and that the meth possession would have been an aggravated misdemeanor or class D felony under Iowa law given prior Iowa convictions listed in the PSR.
- Holm argued on appeal that the PSR did not sufficiently show his prior Iowa convictions were under the specific chapters that make a third offense a felony; the court held Holm failed to preserve or prove any contrary record and that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies because firearm was possessed "in connection with" another felony | Holm: record lacks proof that meth possession was a felony under Iowa law, so enhancement improper | Govt/PSR/District Ct: firearm facilitated meth possession and PSR evidence (including state charge) supports that the possession would have been an aggravated misdemeanor or felony | Affirmed — court found facilitation by firearm and no clear error in concluding meth possession qualified as felony/aggravated misdemeanor |
| Whether PSR/record sufficiently established prior convictions made the May 21 possession a felony | Holm: paragraphs 39–40 didn’t specify convictions were under chapters that predicate a felony; therefore §4A1.2(o) not satisfied | Probation officer and court inferred from state charge (third-or-subsequent) that prior convictions were predicate offenses; Holm failed to request state records at sentencing | Affirmed — inference was reasonable; Holm didn’t preserve a viable contrary record; no clear error |
| Whether district court erred given plea stipulation that enhancement did not apply | Holm: plea stipulation indicated enhancement did not apply | Court: stipulation not binding on court at sentencing; court may determine relevant conduct and guideline application | Affirmed — stipulation non-binding; court properly considered conduct for sentencing |
| Whether appellate consideration of extra-record material under FRAP 10(e) was warranted | Holm: additional materials would affect resolution | Govt/court: motion previously denied; Holm did not show material would change outcome | Denied — no impact shown; issue not taken up |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Littrell, 557 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court must find by preponderance another felony was committed and firearm facilitated it)
- United States v. Sneed, 742 F.3d 341 (8th Cir. 2014) (when drug user carries drugs publicly with a firearm, an "in connection with" finding is rarely clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Fuentes-Torres, 529 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2008) (same principle on firearms facilitating drug offenses)
- United States v. Phillips, 633 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2011) (Iowa aggravated misdemeanor may qualify as a "felony offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(o))
- United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2005) (alternative basis for § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement where state firearm offense could be a felony)