United States v. Shawn Hott
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14499
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2015, Hott showed a witness firearms, homemade silencers, ammunition, and bags of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder; the witness reported him to authorities.
- Law enforcement executed warrants on Hott’s storage unit and RV, seizing firearms, silencers, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and materials suggesting explosive capability.
- Hott pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The PSR set a base offense level of 22 based on a prior Texas felony for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, and added enhancements: +4 for quantity of firearms and +4 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of firearms in connection with another felony (manufacture/sale of silencers).
- The Guidelines range calculated to 135–168 months but was capped at the statutory maximum of 120 months; the district court sentenced Hott to 120 months.
- Hott appealed challenging the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit, selective/vindictive prosecution claim, and the base-offense-level calculation under § 2K2.1(a)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement was proper for firearms used in connection with another felony | Hott: possession of the firearms/ammunition cited in conviction did not facilitate manufacture/sale of silencers | Government/District Court: silencers seized facilitated illegal manufacture/sale; silencers are "firearms" under the NFA and conduct falls within same course of conduct/common scheme | Court: Enhancement properly applied based on possession of silencers connected to another felony |
| Denial of two-level § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Hott: court plainly erred in denying reduction despite guilty plea | Government: Hott disputed ownership in presentence interview, undermining clear acceptance | Court: No plain error; district court had foundation to deny reduction |
| Selective or vindictive prosecution claim | Hott: government selectively/vindictively prosecutes (citing marijuana enforcement) | Government: Argument lacks legal basis and was waived by unconditional guilty plea | Court: Waived and insufficiently supported |
| Use of prior Texas conviction to set base offense level under § 2K2.1(a)(3) | Hott: base level 22 improper because prior Texas conviction does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under Guidelines | Government: conceded Guidelines-calculation error after controlling precedent; district court said sentence would be same under § 3553 factors | Court: Even assuming Guideline error, Hott failed plain-error standard because district court would have imposed same sentence regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for enhancement application)
- United States v. Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. en banc) (silencer is a "firearm" under the National Firearms Act)
- United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2008) (review standard for denial of acceptance-of-responsibility)
- United States v. Shepherd, 848 F.3d 425 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review for Guidelines objections not preserved)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard requirements)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (reasonable-probability showing for prejudice from Guidelines error)
- United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.) (Texas possession with intent not qualifying as a controlled-substance offense under Guidelines)
- United States v. Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292 (5th Cir.) (courts may rely on judge's clear statements that sentence is independent of Guidelines)
- United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.) (no reasonable probability of different sentence where district court states it would impose same sentence despite Guidelines error)