United States v. Richard Mukes
980 F.3d 526
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Richard Mukes pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); he admitted possession but disputed surrounding facts.
- October 5, 2018 dispute with girlfriend Victoria Davis: Davis said Mukes fired four shots into the air and later returned and fired again; Mukes denied firing or brandishing, said he dropped the gun when ordered and then fled.
- Police recovered a loaded handgun; the record conflicted whether Mukes dropped the gun before fleeing (affidavit and Mukes’ testimony) or threw it while fleeing (record of arrest).
- Presentence report applied a 4-level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement (firearm used in connection with another felony — Tennessee reckless endangerment) and a 2-level §3C1.2 enhancement (reckless endangerment during flight), producing a guideline term capped at the 120-month statutory maximum; court denied a §3E.1 acceptance-reduction.
- The district court adopted the enhancements despite factual disputes; the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, instructing the district court not to apply either enhancement and to reconsider the acceptance-reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mukes) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 4-pt enhancement applies (firearm used in connection with another felony) | No — government failed to prove an underlying felony; firing into the air did not violate Tenn. Code § 39-13-103 absent evidence anyone was in the zone of danger | Yes — Mukes fired four shots into the air, was indicted in state court for felony reckless endangerment, and indictment/telephone calls support enhancement | Reversed — enhancement inapplicable: indictment alone insufficient and Tennessee law requires evidence someone was in the zone of danger when gun was discharged (no such evidence) |
| Whether §3C1.2 2-pt enhancement (reckless endangerment during flight) applies | No — record does not show by a preponderance that Mukes fled while armed or that dropping the gun created substantial risk to others | Yes — fleeing with a firearm or throwing/dropping a loaded gun could create substantial risk to officers or bystanders; record-of-arrest supports throwing during flight | Reversed — government failed to meet its burden on any theory (fleeing while armed, discharge on impact, or risk from discarded gun); existing record inadequate to support enhancement |
| Whether court properly denied §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Mukes admitted guilt to possession and contested only sentencing facts; denial penalized him for contesting disputed conduct | Government argued Mukes frivolously contested relevant conduct (firing, threats, throwing gun) and thus forfeited reduction | Vacated and remanded for reconsideration — because enhancements were reversed, district court should reassess whether Mukes qualifies for the 2-level reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 7 S.W.3d 25 (Tenn. 1999) (defines "zone of danger" and imminence requirement for reckless endangerment)
- State v. Fox, 947 S.W.2d 865 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (mere discharge into the air insufficient absent evidence others were in immediate vicinity)
- United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2008) (government bears burden to prove sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Crowell, 997 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1993) (an indictment alone is not proof that charged conduct occurred)
- United States v. Dial, 524 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2008) (elements the government must prove for §3C1.2 enhancement)
- United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005) (deference to district court on highly fact-based endangerment findings)
- United States v. Stafford, 721 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2013) (upholding enhancement where defendant discarded loaded gun in area with pedestrians)
- United States v. Maxon, [citation="250 F. App'x 129"] (6th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing cases where shots fired into air endangered bystanders)
- United States v. Lester, [citation="238 F. App'x 80"] (6th Cir. 2007) (similar to Maxon; bystanders in zone of danger supported enhancement)