Summary
The Fourth Circuit vacated Jonathan Revels’s federal sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court held that the district court had not made the necessary factual findings to support applying the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) cross-reference for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another offense. The court did not decide whether the cross-reference was legally applicable, leaving that determination to the district court on remand.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly applied the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) cross-reference by finding that Revels used or possessed a firearm cited in the offense of conviction in connection with the commission of another offense.
- Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to definitively calculate or explain the advisory Guidelines range, explain the below-Guidelines sentence, reference the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or address Revels's arguments for a lower sentence.
- Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly relied on personal beliefs about whether Revels would serve his state sentence.
Holdings
- The district court's factual findings were legally insufficient to support application of the homicide cross-reference because it did not identify which firearm formed the basis of Revels's § 922(g) conviction or find that the same firearm was used or possessed in connection with the commission or attempted commission of the voluntary-manslaughter offense.
- The court did not hold that the § 2K2.1(c)(1) cross-reference was legally inapplicable; the district court must determine on remand whether evidence supports applying it based on Revels's possession of either shotgun.
Key quotations
“The district court did not make the necessary findings to trigger Guideline § 2K2.1(c)(1), and the issue is not “so obvious” as to permit us to fill in the gaps ourselves.” (4)
“So for the cross reference to apply, the district court had to find that at least one firearm both formed the basis for Revels’ Section 922(g) conviction and was used or possessed in connection with the commission or attempted commission of acts constituting voluntary manslaughter.” (6)
“Our holding . . . is not that the” Section 2K2.1(c)(1) cross reference “is inapplicable as a matter of law.” (10)
Factual background
On September 4, 2016, Revels participated in a four-person altercation that ended when he fatally shot Jason Hunt with a revolver. Evidence showed that Revels possessed three firearms at various times: a Browning shotgun, a Mossberg shotgun, and the revolver. The indictment referenced the two shotguns in a forfeiture notice but did not mention the revolver; the parties stipulated that the shotguns had traveled in interstate commerce. A state court later convicted Revels of voluntary manslaughter for his role in Hunt's death.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Revels of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court initially imposed a 120-month sentence. In a prior appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing because the government had mistakenly misrepresented a material fact at sentencing. On remand, the district court applied a homicide cross-reference under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1), used the voluntary-manslaughter guideline, and imposed an 84-month sentence. Revels appealed again, challenging the cross-reference and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further resentencing. The district court must determine whether evidence supports a finding that Revels's possession of either shotgun facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the homicide offense for which he was convicted in state court, and must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion.