United States v. Young
1:17-cr-00694
D.N.M.May 7, 2021Background
- Apache Young was arrested on November 13, 2016 after police found firearms in his vehicle (three guns; the pistol was determined to be stolen) and was convicted by a jury on December 10, 2018 of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- The Presentence Report applied U.S.S.G. calculations plus the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on multiple prior violent felony convictions, producing an offense level of 33, Criminal History Category VI, and a Guidelines range of 235–293 months.
- The Government sought a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines (293 months) citing Young’s violent history and recorded jail-call threats; Young sought a sentence of 15 years or less (arguing statutory/constitutional limits and acceptance-of-responsibility credit).
- The court found pervasive upward § 3553(a) factors (prolific violent criminal history, threats on recorded calls, lack of demonstrated prior acceptance of responsibility) outweighed downward factors (non‑violent nature of current offense, family letters, some contrition) and therefore denied most defense objections.
- The court directed the PSR be corrected to show the pistol (not the shotgun) was stolen, denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit, rejected Young’s arguments limiting sentence to 15 years, and sentenced Young to 235 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate sentence length (mandatory min v. Guidelines v. high end) | Gov: high-end 293 months necessary to protect public, deter, and reflect violent history | Young: seek 15 years (ACCA minimum) or less; also argued Apprendi concerns and acceptance-of-responsibility | Court: imposed 235 months (low end of Guidelines); denied 15‑yr request and government’s request for high end |
| Applicability of stolen-firearm enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(4)) | Gov: enhancement applies regardless of defendant’s knowledge (Application Note 8) | Young: disputed which gun was stolen and argued mens rea concern | Court: enhancement applies without scienter; PSR corrected to identify the pistol as stolen |
| Acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1) | Gov: should be denied because Young contested intent and made threatening, unremorseful jail calls | Young: asserts he never denied possession and should receive credit | Court: denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit based on trial posture and jail-call evidence |
| Effect of Rehaif on ACCA classification | Gov: Rehaif does not bar ACCA enhancement because ACCA sentencing enhancement does not contain a mens rea requirement | Young: argued Rehaif could undermine §922(g) mens rea issues and therefore impact ACCA status | Court: Rehaif does not prevent Young’s classification as an Armed Career Criminal; prior convictions remain qualifying |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (establishes that the Guidelines are advisory after severance)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Guidelines are important but district courts need not apply a presumption of reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district courts must correctly calculate Guidelines and explain any variance)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements)
- United States v. Terrell, 445 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir.) (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable on appeal)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (mens rea requirement for knowing status under §922(g))
- States v. Tisdale, 921 F.2d 1095 (10th Cir.) (discussion referenced on ACCA sentencing implications)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (discussed sequencing and determination of Guidelines calculation)