UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODNEY BURNETT
No. 21-1945
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Decided June 21, 2022
ARGUED APRIL 27, 2022
John Z. Lee, Judge.
Aрpeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:18-cr-530
Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.
I
In May 2018, in the Garfiеld Park neighborhood of Chicago, passengers in an older-model grey or dark-colored Honda Civic shot two people. Eyewitnesses also reported that one of the shooters wore blаck clothing and a surgical mask—a noteworthy fact, before COVID-19 made mask-wearing common. Shell casings recovered from the scene showed that two guns had been fired.
About 25 minutes after the shooting, pоlice spotted a car in the same general area matching the description provided by the eyewitnesses to the shooting. When the police approached, the car sped аway. A brief chase ensued and ended with the Honda Civic crashing into another car and bursting into flames. Three men, including Rodney Burnett, then got out and ran. At least one of the fleeing passengers carried a gun.
Pоlice pursued two of the men on foot down a nearby alleyway. They caught up to Burnett, who was wearing a blue hoodie and black pants and a surgical mask around his neck, and in a search incident to arrest, found two different brands of ammunition in his pockets. The ammunition matched that found in the two loaded guns tossed during the foot chase. Police later determined that two of the recovered guns (one in thе alley where police arrested Burnett and a second from the backseat of the burned-out Honda) were fired during the shooting.
Burnett pleaded guilty to illegal possession of ammunition based on his prior felony conviction. See
The district court explained its finding this way:
[A]ll threе [men] were in the Honda Civic within 25 minutes of the shooting and in a nearby area; Burnett and [an associate] each had face masks when arrested Burnett had ammunition that matched ... shell casings found at the site оf the shooting; and a 9-millimeter handgun was found in the Honda that matched the ... shell casings found at the site of the shooting.
Given that [two guns] ... were both tied to the ... casings [found at the shooting], they both fall within the scope of relevant conduct under
§ 1B1.3(a)(1) and(2) . And, while there may be no evidence that the [third] gun was discharged during the shooting, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that Burnett or one of his associates possessed the gun as part of their plan to carry it out. Thus, the Court finds that the government has satisfied its burden to prove that the 2-level enhancement§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) applies.
With the enhancement, Burnett‘s total offense level reached 25. And with his category V criminal history, thе Guidelines yielded an advisory range of 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Burnett to 110 months.
Burnett now appeals.
II
Burnett renews his challenge to the application of the two-level enhancement under
A
At sentencing a district court may take a defendant‘s offense conduct—often narrowly defined, such as Burnett‘s unlawful possession of ammunition here—and put that conduct in context by considering the broader sequence of events leading up to, and following, the particular unlawful act at the heart of the defendant‘s conviction. Doing so allows the court to ensure that the defendant‘s sentence reflects a more cоmplete picture of his illegal behavior, rather than a narrower and incomplete snapshot of a criminal act. The Sentencing Guidelines capture this approach through the so-cаlled relevant conduct rule, which provides district courts direction as to the scope of conduct appropriate for consideration at sentencing. See
For purposes of determining a defendant‘s base offense level, the Sentencing Guidelines group together offenses for unlawful possession of ammunition and unlawful possession of firearms. See
To determine which guns, if any, should be considered “involved in” the defendant‘s offense, sentencing courts apply the definition of “relevant conduct” in
We review а district court‘s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo. See United States v. Miller, 883 F.3d 998, 1004 (7th Cir. 2018). But we review a district court‘s factual finding regarding the number of guns “involved in” an offense for purposes of
B
Having taken our own fresh look at the sentencing transcript, we see no errors—legal or factual. The court applied the precise legal framework we have described and, in doing so, did not clearly err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under
The totality of the evidence before the district court adequаtely supported its factual finding that Burnett and the other Honda passengers were involved in a joint criminal undertaking. Indeed, Burnett concedes on appeal that he was involved in the shooting—an acknowledgement finding ample support in the factual record:
- Burnett‘s clothing sufficiently matched the eyewitnesses’ description of one of the shooters;
- Burnett fled from the Honda Civic involved in the shooting;
- Burnett was carrying ammunition for one of the guns used in the shooting; and
- The third gun abandoned in the Honda matched shell casings found at the scene of the shooting.
The record also supports an inference that Burnett and his companions planned the shoоting and carried it out together. During and after the shooting, Burnett and his associate wore masks—which, in a pre-COVID world, the judge could reasonably interpret as reflecting planned, deliberate joint action—and the trio then fled together in a single car.
Burnett offers several responses, but each falls short. First, he insists that the shooting was unplanned. But the district court was not required to credit Burnett‘s version of events. See Ghiassi, 729 F.3d at 696–97. His competing narrative did not negate the significant circumstantial evidence supporting the district court‘s finding of a joint and foreseeable plan. Second, Burnett urges that, because the governmеnt lacked evidence that the second gun discarded in the alley was fired in the shooting, the district court had no basis for concluding that it was involved. Recall, though, that the evidence showed that Burnett was cаrrying ammo for that very gun as well, and that it was discarded while Burnett and his companion fled
At bottom, Burnett attempts to hold the sentencing court to too high of a standard. On this factual record, we will not disturb the district court‘s finding that three guns were “involved in” Burnett‘s unlawful possession of ammunition offense.
Because the provisions regarding joint activity and “aiding and abetting” are alternative bases for applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under
In short, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Burnett‘s relevant conduct involved three guns that were part of the planned, joint activity of the shooting, and thus warranted a two-level enhancement under
For these reasons, we AFFIRM.