United States v. Jeremy Saul
701 F. App'x 541
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jeremy Saul pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- The district court applied two Guideline enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1: +2 for possession of a stolen firearm (b)(4)(A) and an enhancement under (b)(6)(B) for possession "in connection with" another felony.
- Saul argued at sentencing the government had not proven he knew the gun was stolen and disputed the (b)(6)(B) connection to a separate felony under Iowa law.
- The district court sentenced Saul to 51 months (bottom of the 51–63 month guideline range) and denied a motion for a downward variance.
- Saul appealed, claiming the guideline enhancements were improper and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) (stolen firearm) | Saul: enhancement requires knowledge that the firearm was stolen. | Government: comment 8(B) makes the enhancement apply regardless of defendant's knowledge; firearm was stolen. | Court: Affirmed; enhancement proper because comment provides it applies without knowledge. |
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (possession "in connection with" another felony) | Saul: government failed to prove connection to another felony. | Government: evidence supports finding connection to felony defined by Iowa Code § 724.4(1). | Court: Affirmed; not clear error to find the required connection. |
| Denial of downward variance / substantive reasonableness | Saul: court abused discretion by rejecting his policy and mitigating arguments; sentence unreasonable. | Government: court considered mitigating evidence and rejected policy argument; within-range sentence presumptively reasonable. | Court: Affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion and 51-month sentence not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aguilar, 512 F.3d 485 (8th Cir.) (guidelines interpretation de novo; factual findings for enhancements reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir.) (stolen-firearm enhancement applies without defendant's knowledge under comment 8(B))
- United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; within-guideline sentences presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir.) (substantive-unreasonableness standard: weighing of factors)
- United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir.) (framework for assessing substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir.) (analysis of what supports finding firearm possession "in connection with" another felony)
- United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878 (8th Cir.) (acknowledgment of mitigating evidence supports reasonableness when court considers it)