UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvano Dwayne MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-4229
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
June 23, 2017
1076
Submitted: March 6, 2017
Melvano Dwayne Moore, Pro se.
Heather Quick, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender‘s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
Melvano Moore pled guilty to making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, in violation of
On September 22, 2013, Moore executed a Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 to purchase a firearm. On the form, Moore represented that he was not an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
On May 27, 2015, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Moore‘s residence. During the search, officers recovered four handguns, a rifle, and evidence of marijuana use. Moore later admitted that he was a marijuana user both at the time of the search and when he filled out Form 4473.
Moore was charged with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, in violation of
The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated Moore‘s guideline range at 12-18 months’ imprisonment, based on an offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of I. Moore objected to the PSR‘s guideline range, arguing it should be reduced to 0-6 months because he possessed the firearms for sporting purposes, pursuant to
II.
On appeal, Moore challenges the denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to
A.
We review the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 420 (8th Cir. 2012). Under
To determine whether the sporting-use or collection reduction applies, courts look to the “[r]elevant surrounding circumstances,” which “include the number and type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant‘s criminal history (e.g., prior convictions for offenses involving firearms), and the extent to which possession was restricted by local law.”
The only evidence at sentencing to arguably support a sporting-use reduction was that Moore enjoys hunting, fishing, and competing in gun competitions. Moore did not present any evidence, however, that the firearms he possessed were actually used for those purposes. See Massey, 462 F.3d at 846 (upholding the sporting-use reduction based on evidence of the “actual use of the guns“). Nor did Moore present a hunting license. See id. (noting the defendant presented hunting and fishing licenses).
Additionally, when Moore objected to the PSR for failing to apply the sporting-use reduction, he stated, “[h]is primary interest in firearms was for protection, collection, and target shooting purposes, as he was studying criminal justice and has an interest in pursuing a law enforcement career.” Thus, by Moore‘s own admissions, he did not possess the firearms solely for sporting or collection purposes. And “[a] defendant who possesses a handgun for personal protection is not entitled to a
B.
We review the imposition of special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hart, 829 F.3d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 2016). Pursuant to
The special condition to which Moore objects provides: “The defendant shall participate in an approved treatment program for anger control/domestic violence. Participation may include inpatient/outpatient treatment. The defendant will contribute to the costs of services rendered (co-payment) based on ability to pay or availability of third party payment.” Moore argues this condition was imposed without evidence of its need and, thus, is not reasonably related to sentencing goals.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
MELLOY
Circuit Judge