United States v. Jerome Edwards
702 F. App'x 61
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Jerome Edwards was convicted by a jury of two Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951) arising from two 2011 restaurant robberies captured on surveillance video.
- At the Wendy’s robbery Edwards donned a ski mask, displayed a handgun, pointed it at the cashier, and took $216; employees identified him from video.
- At the McDonald’s robbery Edwards threw a rock through the drive-thru window, entered, drew a handgun, threatened to kill employees, pursued an employee, and fled; no property was taken.
- The jury acquitted Edwards of two firearms counts (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) but convicted him of the robberies.
- At sentencing the District Court applied a five-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing or possessing a firearm, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the object was a real firearm.
- Edwards appealed, arguing the enhancement was clear error given his acquittal on the firearms counts; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by applying the § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) five‑level enhancement for brandishing/possessing a firearm at sentencing | Edwards: insufficient evidence by a preponderance that the object was a real firearm (could have been a fake/toy); acquittal on § 924(c) bars enhancement | Government/District Court: surveillance video, officer testimony, and eyewitness accounts make it more likely than not the object was a real firearm; sentencing uses preponderance standard so enhancement is proper | The Third Circuit affirmed: the district court’s finding that the firearm was brandished/possessed was not clearly erroneous and the enhancement was properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (per curiam) (acquittal does not bar consideration of underlying conduct at sentencing if proved by a preponderance)
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (sentencing facts are proved by a preponderance; appellate review is for clear error)
- Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (definition of the clear‑error standard)