United States v. Davis, No. 13-3028 (8th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Defendant appealed his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment after applying the first-degree murder cross-reference from U.S.S.G. 2A1.1 where defendant possessed the firearm while participating in a homicide. The court concluded that the district court did not err by conducting its own fact-finding for the purposes of the section 2A1.1 cross-reference and otherwise determining the guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. In a prosecution for being a felon in possession, the government introduced evidence at sentencing that defendant had possessed the firearm while participating in a homicide, and the district court did not err in applying the first-degree murder Guidelines Sec. 2A1.1 cross-reference; application of the cross-reference did not implicate Apprendi nor Alleyne.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3028 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry Davis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2014 Filed: June 12, 2014 [Published] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Larry Davis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court1 imposed a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment after 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. applying the first-degree murder cross-reference from the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") § 2A1.1. Davis appeals the application of § 2A1.1 and the sentence. We affirm. Davis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At sentencing the government put on evidence to support a theory Davis had acted in concert with an unknown person in a fatal shooting. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence Davis possessed a firearm while participating in a homicide and thus applied the first-degree murder § 2A1.1 cross-reference. The district court calculated an offense level of 43 and a guidelines sentence of life. The district court sentenced Davis to the statutory maximum of 120 months of imprisonment. Davis appeals the application of the cross-reference and argues the district court violated Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), by applying the § 2A1.1 cross-reference without having a jury act as the fact-finder. This court reviews a district court's interpretation and application of the guidelines de novo. United States v. Hoffman, 707 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 2013). In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the Supreme Court held "other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2155, the Supreme Court extended Apprendi and held any fact which increases the mandatory minimum sentence to which a defendant is exposed is an "element" of the crime and must be submitted to the jury. Application of the § 2A1.1 cross-reference neither increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum, see Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, nor increases the mandatory minimum, see Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2155. Regarding whether a jury is required, -2- application of a statutory maximum or minimum are to be distinguished from "factfinding used to guide judicial discretion in selecting punishment within limits fixed by law. While such findings of facts may lead judges to select sentences that are more severe than the ones they would have selected without those facts, the Sixth Amendment does not govern the element of sentencing." Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2161 n.2 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The district court did not err in conducting its own fact-finding for the purposes of the § 2A1.1 cross-reference and otherwise determining the guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. ______________________________ -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.