United States v. Randy Patrie, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932

Randy Patrie pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and possession of sawed-off shotguns (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)).
Law enforcement seized over two dozen firearms from Patrie’s residence, including a .410 gauge sawed-off shotgun that matched the gun used to kill Carl Kenneth Gallmeyer in a 2012 burglary.
At sentencing the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Patrie committed first-degree murder of Gallmeyer using the .410 sawed-off shotgun and applied the Sentencing Guidelines cross-reference to homicide (USSG § 2K2.1(c)).
The district court also found Patrie qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on one drug conviction and two Iowa second-degree burglary convictions, producing a Guidelines range of life imprisonment.
Patrie appealed, arguing (1) the cross-reference to murder improperly applied because the murder weapon was not one charged in the felon-in-possession count, (2) his prior burglaries do not qualify as predicate violent felonies under § 924(e), and (3) the court’s factfinding on priors violated his Sixth Amendment jury right.

Issue	Patrie’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether the § 2K2.1(c) cross-reference to homicide may be applied when the firearm used in the homicide was not one listed in the felon-in-possession count	Cross-reference should not apply because the murder weapon was not among the firearms charged in the § 922(g) count	Cross-reference applies to “any firearm” used or possessed in connection with another offense; need not be the firearm charged in the convicted count	Affirmed: cross-reference valid; Mann controls and “any firearm” language applies
Whether Patrie’s two Iowa second-degree burglary convictions qualify as predicate "burglary" violent felonies under § 924(e)	Iowa burglary statute is broader/divisible in a way that prevents treating convictions as generic burglaries; modified categorical approach inapplicable	Iowa statute is divisible and the modified categorical approach may be used; the convictions qualify as burglary predicates	Affirmed: convictions qualify as burglary predicates; modified categorical approach properly applied
Whether the district court’s review of prior-conviction records to find predicate offenses violated the Sixth Amendment (Apprendi)	Court’s factual investigation of priors (via documents) impermissibly increased sentence without jury	Prior-conviction exception to Apprendi applies; courts may rely on records to establish priors; circuit precedent allows this	Affirmed: no Sixth Amendment violation; prior-conviction exception controls

United States v. Mann, 315 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2003) ("any firearm" language permits enhancement based on a different firearm)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical and modified categorical approaches explained)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits on documents usable under modified categorical approach)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury, except prior convictions)
United States v. Mathis, 786 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2015) (Iowa burglary statute divisibility and use of definitional provisions)
United States v. Tunley, 664 F.3d 1260 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
United States v. Melbie, 751 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review whether a prior conviction qualifies under § 924(e))
United States v. Cole, 525 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2008) (interpreting similar Guidelines language)
United States v. Anton, 380 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 2004) (plain-language approach to Guidelines)
United States v. Evans, 738 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2014) (circuit precedent that government need not charge or prove priors to a jury)