United States v. Kaleem Stephens, 717 F.3d 440

Stephens was charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy to rob an armored truck and related firearm offenses, including aiding and abetting the use/possession of firearms in a crime of violence and conspiracy to commit a violent offense while possessing a firearm.
Undercover DPS and ATF agents posed as Garda employees; Price coordinated the plot and discussed robbery methods and money targets with investigators.
Stephens and Bruno were introduced as partners by Price; Stephens obtained a gun and Bruno obtained an assault weapon for the planned robbery.
Pre-robbery meetings established roles: Price would restrain Carothers; Stephens would obtain guns; discussions contemplated increasing the target from $250,000 to $500,000.
The jury convicted Stephens on all counts; district court sentenced him to 84 months on conspiracies and 60 months on the firearms charge, totaling 144 months.
Stephens appeals on entrapment instruction, evidentiary sufficiency, sentencing guideline calculations, and substantive reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entrapment instruction warranted?	Stephens argues lack of predisposition requires entrapment instruction.	Government contends no predisposition shown; instruction unnecessary.	No entrapment instruction required.
Evidentiary sufficiency on entrapment	Stephens contends record shows entrapment evidence.	Government need not prove non-entrapment absent prima facie case; Stephens failed to show entrapment.	Evidentiary insufficiency argument rejected.
Loss calculation under Guidelines § 2B3.1(b)(7)(D)	Three-point enhancement should apply only to actual loss, not intended loss; no actual loss occurred.	Cross-reference to § 2X1.1 applies for intended loss in conspiracy; impact on sentence limited.	Error did not affect substantial rights; cross-reference rendered same outcome.
Acceptance of responsibility	Entitlement to § 3E1.1 reduction despite trial on entrapment grounds.	Defendants denying guilt on entrapment basis are not entitled to reduction.	denial of reduction affirmed.
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Stephen’s conduct and lack of actual victims do not negate reasonableness.	Sentence at bottom of Guidelines range; argue excessiveness.	Sentence affirmed as reasonable.

United States v. Gutierrez, 343 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for entrapment instruction on appeal)
United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2010) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard on appeal)
United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 2007) (guidelines-interpretation and factual findings review)