United States v. Evans

No. 23-3855, File No. 25a0284p.06 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 16, 2025 · No. 23-3855

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Kenneth Evans’s 57-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that aggravated robbery under Ohio Revised Code § 2911.01(A)(1), predicated on theft under § 2913.02, categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines’ enumerated-offenses clause for extortion. The court also granted the government’s motion to take judicial notice.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Andre B. Mathis; Richard Allen Griffin; Amul R. Thapar
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
October 16, 2025
Docket number
23-3855
Procedural posture
Evans pleaded guilty in federal district court to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and appealed his 57-month sentence, challenging the increase in his advisory Guidelines range based on a prior Ohio aggravated-robbery conviction.
Standard of review
De novo review of the district court's legal determination whether the prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Precedential value
Published and recommended for publication; precedential within the Sixth Circuit subject to applicable publication rules.
Parties
Kenneth Evans v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencing guidelinesstatutory interpretationcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawSentencingAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Evans's Ohio aggravated-robbery conviction, predicated on Ohio theft under Ohio Revised Code § 2913.02, categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the enumerated-offenses clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), specifically as Guidelines extortion.
  2. Whether the district court properly increased Evans's advisory Guidelines range based on that prior conviction.
  3. Whether the government should be permitted to take judicial notice of the relevant materials.

Holdings

  1. An Ohio aggravated-robbery conviction under § 2911.01(A)(1), when predicated on theft under § 2913.02, categorically matches Guidelines extortion and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).
  2. The district court correctly determined that Evans had a prior crime-of-violence conviction and properly applied the resulting increase in his advisory Guidelines range.

Key quotations

Evans’s prior conviction for aggravated robbery by § 2913.02 theft, in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2911.01(A)(1), categorically matches Guidelines extortion and thus constitutes a crime of violence. (7)
The district court therefore correctly found that Evans had a prior conviction for a crime of violence. (7)

Factual background

Officers observed Evans participate in a hand-to-hand transaction in a vehicle, approached the vehicle after smelling marijuana, and discovered a loaded pistol. Evans admitted touching the pistol and disclosed that he was on parole. He had previously been convicted of multiple Ohio felonies, including aggravated robbery under Ohio Revised Code § 2911.01(A)(1), which increased his advisory Guidelines range for the federal felon-in-possession offense.

Procedural history

A federal grand jury indicted Evans for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty, and the district court increased his advisory Guidelines range from 24–30 months to 46–57 months based on his prior aggravated-robbery conviction before imposing a 57-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…