United States v. Melvano Moore
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11169
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Moore completed ATF Form 4473 to buy a firearm and answered that he was not an unlawful user of controlled substances.
- A 2015 search of Moore’s home recovered four handguns, a rifle, and evidence of marijuana use; Moore admitted he used marijuana when he filled out the form.
- Moore was charged with making a false statement in connection with a firearm purchase (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)) and being an unlawful user in possession (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2)); he pled guilty to the false-statement count and the unlawful-user count was dismissed per plea agreement.
- The PSR set a Guidelines range of 12–18 months (offense level 13, CHC I); Moore sought a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) (firearms possessed solely for sporting/collection) to 0–6 months.
- The district court denied the § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction and imposed 12 months + 1 day imprisonment and 24 months’ supervised release, including a special condition requiring participation in an anger-control/domestic-violence treatment program based on a 10-year-old terroristic-threats conviction.
- Moore appealed the denial of the sporting-use reduction and the imposition of the special supervised-release condition; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore was entitled to a Guidelines reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) for possessing firearms solely for sporting or collection purposes | Moore: firearms were for hunting, target shooting, competition, and collection; reduction to base level 6 applies | Government/District: evidence showed no actual sporting use; Moore admitted primary interest included protection; burden on Moore to prove sole sporting/collection use | Denied — No clear error. Moore failed to show actual use or exclusivity for sporting/collection; admitted protective purpose precluded the reduction (possession for protection bars § 2K2.1(b)(2)) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a special condition requiring anger-control/domestic-violence treatment | Moore: no evidentiary basis for the condition; not reasonably related to sentencing goals | Government/District: condition reasonably related to Moore’s history (prior terroristic-threats conviction); limited liberty impact; within broad § 3583(d) discretion | Affirmed — Condition reasonably related to defendant’s history and sentencing factors; not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: guidelines application de novo; factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Massey, 462 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant bears burden to prove actual sporting use; evidence of actual use supports § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Ramirez-Rios, 270 F.3d 1185 (8th Cir. 2001) (possession of a handgun for personal protection disqualifies defendant from § 2K2.1(b)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Hart, 829 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2016) (review of special supervised-release conditions for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2015) (factors governing reasonable relation of special conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d))
- United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (district courts have broad discretion to impose special conditions of supervised release)