United States v. Larry Brown

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 9, 2020 · No. 18-50962

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the revocation of supervised release and the felon-in-possession sentence. Finding no plain error, the court held that the district court was not required to apply *Boykin*'s knowing-and-voluntary plea colloquy to revocation proceedings because the law was unsettled, and the revocation sentence was not plainly unreasonable given the policy favoring consecutive sentences. Additionally, the district court did not clearly err in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)'s four-level enhancement based on a firearm found in close proximity to drugs and paraphernalia, supporting a finding of drug trafficking.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Haynes, Circuit Judge; Oldham, Circuit Judge; Hanen, District Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
January 9, 2020
Docket number
18-50962
Procedural posture
Appeal from revocation of supervised release and sentencing for felon in possession of a firearm.
Standard of review
Plain error review for revocation sentence (unpreserved); de novo review of guidelines application, clear error for factual findings for felon-in-possession sentence.
Precedential value
Unpublished
Parties
Larry Wesley Brown v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduresentencingappellate procedurestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

Criminal LawSentencingAppellate Procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brown's plea to the revocation allegations was knowing and voluntary and whether the revocation sentence was unreasonable
  2. Whether the district court properly applied the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense

Holdings

  1. Even if the district court did not expressly assess whether Brown's plea was knowing and voluntary, such failure would not be plain error because the law is unsettled and other circuits have held Boykin does not apply to revocation proceedings.
  2. The revocation sentence was not plainly unreasonable because the district court followed the guidelines policy statement recommending consecutive sentences, and the explanation, though brief, was sufficient.
  3. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the firearm was possessed in connection with a drug trafficking offense, because the firearm was in close proximity to drugs and drug paraphernalia, and the drugs were packaged for distribution.

Key quotations

To establish plain error, Brown must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was 'clear or obvious,' and (3) the error 'affected [his] substantial rights.' (at 3)
Thus, even if the district court did not expressly assess whether Brown's plea was knowing and voluntary, such failure would not be plain error. (at 4)
We have repeatedly upheld revocation sentences that were ordered to run consecutively to sentences for new offenses that prompted the revocation. (at 6)
The district court's findings supporting the enhancement were not clearly erroneous. (at 8)

Factual background

Brown was on supervised release after a 2008 felon-in-possession conviction. In 2018, he was arrested for a state parole violation, and officers found a loaded firearm, three extra magazines, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in his home. He pleaded guilty to a new felon-in-possession charge. The presentence report indicated that the firearm was found in a toolbox near a bed, along with drug paraphernalia including a digital scale and small bags of cocaine, suggesting drug trafficking.

Procedural history

Brown was originally convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2008 and sentenced to 52 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. While on supervised release, he was arrested for a state parole violation and found with a firearm and drugs. He was charged with a new felon-in-possession offense and pleaded guilty. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months for the revocation and 71 months for the new offense, to run consecutively. Brown appealed both judgments.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…