United States v. Taylor
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 364
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Dasean Taylor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and faced sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (trafficking in firearms).
- Without the trafficking enhancement Taylor’s total offense level would be 19 (range 37–46 months); with the four‑point trafficking enhancement his total offense level rose to 23 (range 57–71 months); Taylor’s criminal history category was III.
- The District Court found Taylor supplied firearms to a cooperating witness (CW‑1) on three dates in 2013, and relied on two transactions to satisfy application note 13(ii): (1) Sept. 17 — CW‑1 said he would remove a serial number during a transaction in which Taylor demonstrated the gun; (2) Oct. 16 — Taylor sold CW‑1 a sawed‑off shotgun in a cash, private sale.
- The court concluded CW‑1’s statement about removing the serial number and the sawed‑off shotgun sale gave Taylor reason to believe CW‑1 would use or dispose of the firearms unlawfully, justifying the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement.
- Taylor did not preserve a specific challenge to those factual findings at sentencing; appellate review was therefore for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(5) trafficking enhancement applies based on Sept. 17 and Oct. 16 transactions | Taylor: the record does not show he heard or knew CW‑1’s statement about removing a serial number, and facts do not show he knew CW‑1 would unlawfully possess/use the sawed‑off shotgun | Government/District Court: Taylor was present and demonstrated the firearm when CW‑1 said he would remove the serial number; the private cash sale of a sawed‑off shotgun (with prior notice of serial‑removal intent) supported the inference Taylor knew unlawful use/disposal was likely | Affirmed: the court found no clear or obvious error — facts support that Taylor knew or had reason to believe unlawful use/disposal was likely, so enhancement applies |
| Whether plain‑error review requires reversal | Taylor: challenges not preserved; argues facts do not meet application note 13(ii) and plain error occurred | Government: met burden by preponderance; District Court’s factual findings reasonable; plain‑error standard not met | Affirmed: under plain‑error standard, defendant failed to show clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights or judicial integrity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (government must prove sentencing enhancement by a preponderance)
- United States v. Figuereo, 404 F.3d 537 (1st Cir.) (preservation requirement and plain‑error framework on appeal)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (plain‑error standard elements)
- United States v. Ortiz, 64 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (removal of serial number supports inference of anticipated criminal use)
- United States v. Jenkins, [citation="528 F. App'x 483"] (6th Cir.) (lack of serial number and similar facts support defendant's knowledge of unlawful use)