United States v. Rios
3:20-cr-00091
N.D. Ind.Aug 16, 2021Background:
- Defendant Bryant Rios pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- During a search of 1140 E. Madison officers recovered three firearms hidden in a crawlspace and a black iPhone 8; Braxton Rios was found in the crawlspace.
- Rios admitted in interview that the three firearms were his (and his DNA was on one Taurus), but later contested ownership of all three, conceding possession of at least one (the Taurus) and admitting he possessed the SCCY during an earlier, escalating firearms exchange.
- A robbery victim reported being robbed at gunpoint the night before; the Taurus matched her description, but the phone recovered was never confirmed as hers and investigators found the victim’s statements inconsistent and of questionable credibility.
- Court found by a preponderance that Rios actually or constructively possessed all three firearms (applying a 2‑level §2K2.1(b)(1)(A) enhancement), but rejected the government’s claim that he used the Taurus in a separate felony robbery (denying the 4‑level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement).
- Court sustained Rios’s objection that his prior Indiana criminal‑recklessness conviction is not a Guidelines "crime of violence," set the total offense level at 22 (after the firearms count enhancement), reduced to 19 for acceptance of responsibility, with Criminal History Category V and an advisory range of 57–71 months.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether three firearms may be counted for §2K2.1(b)(1)(A) enhancement | Government: all three recovered firearms were part of same course of conduct and Rios either actually or constructively possessed them | Rios: he only possessed one firearm and only admitted ownership to protect his brothers | Held: Court found it more likely than not Rios possessed all three; +2 enhancement applied |
| Whether Rios’s Indiana criminal‑recklessness conviction is a "crime of violence" under §4B1.2 | Government: PSR relied on Clinton to treat conviction as crime of violence | Rios: conviction does not meet the Guidelines definition | Held: Court sustained objection — Clinton no longer controls; conviction not a crime of violence |
| Whether the Taurus was used in another felony (armed robbery) triggering +4 under §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) | Government: victim’s 911 report, description matched Rios and the Taurus, and the phone and gun were recovered from the crawlspace | Rios: victim fabricated story; discrepancies and investigating officers doubted her credibility; phone not confirmed as hers | Held: Court found government failed to prove robbery connection; +4 enhancement denied |
| Whether two criminal‑history points for non‑support conviction should be assigned | Government/PSR: conviction and incarceration dates justify the points | Rios: circumstances (incarceration on earlier conviction) explained; does not contest calculation but asks for consideration under §3553(a) | Held: Court did not rule on guideline calculation (no impact) and will consider circumstances under §3553(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ghiassi, 729 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (relevant conduct/same course of conduct analysis for counting firearms)
- United States v. Santoro, 159 F.3d 318 (7th Cir.) (same course of conduct for multiple firearms)
- United States v. Morris, 349 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir.) (actual and constructive possession definitions)
- United States v. Morris, 576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir.) (constructive possession as legal fiction)
- United States v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir.) (possession explanations)
- United States v. Birk, 453 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (use of reliable information at sentencing)
- United States v. Edwards, 115 F.3d 1322 (7th Cir.) (reliability standard for sentencing facts)
- United States v. Black, 636 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (burden shift when defendant creates real doubt in PSR facts)
- United States v. Clinton, 591 F.3d 968 (7th Cir.) (addressed and treated as no longer controlling for crime‑of‑violence determination)
- United States v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir.) (government’s burden to prove felonious conduct for §2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement)