United States v. Mangum
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23599
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Mangum pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court sentenced Mangum to 84 months' imprisonment, higher than the guidelines range.
- The court applied the § 2K2.1(b)(6) four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense.
- Evidence showed Mangum engaged in an illegal counterfeit-check operation and had a prior first-degree robbery conviction.
- During a controlled transaction, Mangum admitted having a firearm and officers recovered a loaded pistol in his front coat pocket.
- The district court later found that Mangum's criminal behavior was coupled with the firearm, supporting the enhancement; Mangum challenged this reasoning and the above-guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm enhancement applies | Mangum contends no firearm was used in connection with the offenses. | Mangum argues the government failed to prove the firearm facilitated the offenses. | The enhancement applied; firearm was in an easily accessible location and may have emboldened the illegal act. |
| Whether the sentence above the guidelines is properly explained | Mangum claims the court gave an inadequate, non-guidelines-based justification. | Mangum asserts the variance was impermissible or unexplained. | The district court provided explicit, sufficient rationale for the variance and it was substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guiheen, 594 F.3d 589 (8th Cir.2010) (defines 'in connection with' and supports inference from firearm presence)
- United States v. Kanatzar, 370 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.2004) (supports inference of emboldening effect of firearm)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc decision on sentencing variance explanation)
- United States v. Hill, 513 F.3d 894 (8th Cir.2008) (affirming factors for variances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir.2009) (deference to individualized, fact-based sentencing decisions)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (procedural and substantive review standards for variances)