United States v. Regis Adkins
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18443
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Adkins was indicted for felon in possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and pled guilty on Jan 9, 2012.
- At sentencing, the Presentence Report recommended base level 20 under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) due to a prior crime-of-violence.
- The district court applied a four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement for possession of ammunition in connection with another felony (aggravated assault).
- Video surveillance showed Adkins firing a handgun at an SUV; self-defense and the nature of the offense were disputed.
- The court imputed a prior violent-conviction enhancement under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on a state-court gang activity conviction.
- Adkins objected to a juvenile adjudication used for criminal history and to the district court’s consideration of personal history under § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6) applies to Adkins. | Adkins argues no nexus to an independent felony; self-defense negates intent. | District court properly found nexus between firearm and aggravated assault as another felony. | Yes; four-level enhancement affirmed. |
| Whether the base offense level was correctly calculated given the prior conviction. | Adkins challenges the violent-crime predicate under 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). | State court journal entry shows a crime of violence; valid Shepard documentation. | Yes; base level of 20 correctly applied. |
| Whether the district court properly assigned a criminal history point for a juvenile adjudication. | Adkins asserts no guilty finding or probation for the juvenile incident. | Parole Authority report (probation/adjunction) supports the adjudication. | Yes; one criminal history point properly assigned. |
| Whether the district court adequately considered Adkins’s personal history under § 3553(a). | district court did not properly weigh family history and personal circumstances. | Court explicitly weighed § 3553(a) factors; no clear error. | Yes; district court adequately considered § 3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Taylor, 648 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2011) (reliance on deference to district court findings for 'in connection with' analysis)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (categorical approach to crimes of violence)
- United States v. Mosley, 575 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) ( Shepard-based review of comparable judicial records)
- United States v. Armstead, 467 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2006) ( Shepard documentation for prior convictions)
- United States v. Beasley, 442 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2006) (assessment of prior related conduct for sentencing)
- United States v. Burns, 498 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2007) ( nexus required for § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement)