United States v. Victor Hagman, III
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1643
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hagman, a convicted felon, pled guilty to felon in possession and to possessing/bartering a stolen firearm related to a Titan FIE pistol.
- The PSR recommended a four-level 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) enhancement for 8–24 firearms based on alleged missing firearms from Unkle Dick’s.
- The district court applied the enhancement, relying on government testimony that Hagman engaged in bartering for return of stolen firearms.
- The government argued Hagman may have been involved with all twelve missing firearms, but the burglary’s full facts were murky.
- On appeal, Hagman challenged actual/constructive possession of the eleven missing firearms and the bartering rationale.
- The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding the enhancement was not proven by a preponderance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) enhancement applies. | Hagman’s actions involved eight–twenty-four firearms. | There was insufficient evidence Hagman possessed or sought to obtain eight–twenty-four firearms. | No; enhancement vacated and remanded. |
| Actual possession of eleven missing firearms proven by a preponderance of the evidence. | Hagman had actual possession through direct control. | No evidence shows Hagman physically possessed the eleven firearms. | Not proven; vacate and remand. |
| Constructive possession of the eleven missing firearms. | Hagman placed himself in negotiations implying dominion/control. | No evidence of dominion or control over the firearms or the premises. | Not proven; vacate and remand. |
| Whether Hagman unlawfully sought to obtain the firearms constitutes bartering/part of the enhancement. | Hagman unlawfully sought to obtain the firearms due to felon status. | No federal statute makes such seeking unlawful for a felon; 922(j) concerns bartering, not evaluation for § 2K2.1. | Bartering/attempted obtainment cannot justify the enhancement; vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for guidelines interpretations and factual review)
- United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating relevant conduct under the guidelines)
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Mohr, 554 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of guideline commentary and related issues)
- United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2005) (possession can be actual or constructive)