United States v. Steven Chavez Phillips-Hall ( 2023 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0210n.06
Case No. 22-1492
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
) May 04, 2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
STEVEN CHAVEZ PHILLIPS-HALL, ) MICHIGAN
Defendant-Appellant. )
) OPINION
Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Steven Phillips-Hall pled guilty to firearms offenses. At
sentencing, the district court imposed a four-level enhancement, finding that Phillips-Hall
participated in a shooting three days before his arrest. Because that finding was not clearly
erroneous, we affirm Phillips-Hall’s sentence.
I.
Where was Steven Phillips-Hall at 11:56 p.m. on August 6, 2021? That’s the question at
the heart of this case, and the parties dispute the answer. But the following is all undisputed.
First, in March 2021, officers arrested Phillips-Hall and obtained a search warrant for his
apartment. They found a loaded Glock Model 22 .40-caliber pistol, a loaded Smith & Wesson SD
9 VE 9mm pistol, and ammunition for both.
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall
Second, in June 2021, Phillips-Hall was involved in a parking-lot shootout. Phillips-Hall
and a group of suspected Bemis gang members (Phillips-Hall himself is known as “Bemis Steve”)
exchanged shots with suspected members of their rival gang, Highland. Stray bullets damaged
property in the area, and a passer-by received a bullet wound to the head.
Third, on August 6 at 11:56 p.m., someone fired shots outside the Metro Bar, where
Highland gang members were gathered. Four people were injured. After police arrived on the
scene, a security guard told them that he had seen a man with a gun running away. He described
the man as “an approximately 30-year-old black male, standing approximately 5'7" to 5'9" in
height, with a ‘skinny, muscular’ build.” R. 58-1, Pg. ID 333. He later added that he “thought that
person’s build was similar to Phillips-Hall but he did not know for sure.” Id. at 336. A few days
after the shooting, officers found ten shell casings across the street from the bar.
Fourth, just days after the Metro Bar shooting, officers arrested Phillips-Hall following a
chase and a struggle. They found a stolen and loaded Sarsilmaz (SAR) CM9 9mm handgun in his
bag. Further investigation revealed that the SAR had fired nine of the ten casings found at the
scene of the Metro Bar shooting. The tenth came from a gun owned by another member of the
Bemis gang, whom Phillips-Hall had called less than a week before that shooting.
Fifth, cell-phone records revealed that about a minute and a half after the Metro Bar
shooting, Phillips-Hall received a call that used a cell tower that covered an area close to the Metro
Bar. When confronted with this evidence, however, Phillips-Hall claimed he was at his sister’s
house all night, which was also within the same cell-tower coverage area. But his other cell-phone
records show that his phone traveled all over the city that same evening.
Based on these facts, the government charged Phillips-Hall with knowingly possessing
three guns as a felon: the Glock, the Smith & Wesson, and the SAR. He pled guilty to possession
-2-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall
of the Glock and the Smith & Wesson. The presentence report (PSR) recommended a four-level
sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with both the parking-lot and the
Metro Bar shootings. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Phillips-Hall raised several objections,
claiming that he shouldn’t be held accountable for either shooting.
At sentencing, the district court agreed that Phillips-Hall’s sentence shouldn’t be enhanced
for his participation in the parking-lot shooting because “[o]ne could make an argument” that he
was acting in self-defense. R. 65, Pg. ID 382. But the court decided that sufficient evidence linked
Phillips-Hall to the Metro Bar shooting. So the court applied the enhancement and sentenced
Phillips-Hall to 115 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Phillips-Hall now
appeals his sentence, arguing the court didn’t have enough evidence establishing his involvement
in the Metro Bar shooting.
II.
The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a four-level sentencing enhancement if the defendant
“used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The government bears the burden of establishing facts supporting the
enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Shanklin, 924 F.3d 905,
919 (6th Cir. 2019). Here, all agree that if Phillips-Hall was the person who fired the SAR pistol
at the Metro Bar, this enhancement would apply. The district court concluded Phillips-Hall was
that person, and we review that factual determination for clear error. See United States v. Taylor,
648 F.3d 417, 432 (6th Cir. 2011).
To succeed on clear-error review, Phillips-Hall must shoulder a heavy burden. See United
States v. Reinberg, 62 F.4th 266, 268–69 (6th Cir. 2023). He must leave us with a “definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564,
-3-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall
573 (1985). Phillips-Hall hasn’t done that. Consider the evidence supporting the enhancement.
First, three days after the shooting, Phillips-Hall was caught carrying the gun that fired nine shots
at the Metro Bar. And police later learned that Phillips-Hall knew the man whose gun fired the
tenth shot. Second, Phillips-Hall had a likely motive: to harm the rival gang that tried to kill him
and other Bemis gang members a few months prior. Third, Phillips-Hall lied to police about where
he was during the evening of the shooting. Fourth, cell records confirmed Phillips-Hall could have
been near the bar immediately after the shooting. Fifth, a security guard described a man who he
thought matched Phillips-Hall’s description running from the scene. Taken together, these facts
provide ample support for the conclusion that Phillips-Hall was involved in the Metro Bar
shooting.
Phillips-Hall presents three counterarguments, but none establishes clear error.
First, Phillips-Hall highlights two details of the security guard’s description of the man
fleeing the scene that don’t match Phillips-Hall’s description. For one, the guard described the
man he saw running as being between 5'7" and 5'9", but Phillips-Hall is taller. For another, the
security guard didn’t mention that the man had a limp, but Phillips-Hall has one. Yet these small
inconsistencies don’t show clear error. Rather, we “defer to the district court’s finding about what
transpired” as long as that finding is “plausible on the record as a whole.” United States v. Estrada-
Gonzalez, 32 F.4th 607, 614 (6th Cir. 2022). And here, as outlined above, it was.
Second, Phillips-Hall argues that the cell-tower data from soon after the shooting support
his story more than the government’s. Specifically, he claims he couldn’t have been at the Metro
Bar at the time of the shooting because the cell tower’s coverage area doesn’t cover the bar itself—
rather, it starts a few blocks away. But that doesn’t undermine the district court’s analysis either.
After all, Phillips-Hall didn’t receive a call until about 90 seconds after the shooting. And the
-4-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall
government presented evidence showing Phillips-Hall could have driven from the bar to the
coverage area in less than 90 seconds.1 So the government at least provided a plausible
interpretation of the cell-tower data. And when faced with two plausible interpretations of the
evidence, we defer to the district court’s choice between them. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574.
Third, Phillips-Hall analogizes to another case, United States v. Hatcher, 947 F.3d 383 (6th
Cir. 2020), in which investigators also used shell casings to tie the defendant to a shooting. But
Hatcher addressed the doctrine of “unfair surprise,” which doesn’t apply here. See id. at 389–94.
True, Hatcher went on to criticize the lack of evidence supporting the use of the shooting. But the
Hatcher panel only addressed that issue to “provid[e] clarity on remand.” Id. at 395. To the extent
that discussion didn’t contribute to the court’s holding, it doesn’t bind us. See Wright v. Spaulding,
939 F.3d 695, 701 (6th Cir. 2019).
Regardless, Hatcher’s analysis is distinguishable. The sentencing court in Hatcher used
shell casings to find that the defendant participated in the shooting—even though the government
“did not even allege that [he] was involved.” Id. at 395. Instead, the government claimed merely
that the defendant’s involvement “was a ‘possibility.’” Id. What’s more, the casings only came
to the court through an agent’s unsworn testimony. Id. No other evidence linked the defendant to
the scene. Id. Here, by contrast, the government introduced various pieces of reliable evidence
connecting Phillips-Hall and his gun to the Metro Bar shooting.
1
Phillips-Hall also points out that the security guard described the suspect fleeing away from the
cellular coverage area. But again, that doesn’t make the district court’s conclusion implausible.
For example, the man the guard saw might’ve been the second shooter. And even if the guard
truly witnessed Phillips-Hall, he might’ve simply run around the corner, gotten in a car, and driven
back the other way. Absent evidence foreclosing these alternative and plausible theories, Phillips-
Hall fails to show clear error. Estrada-Gonzalez, 32 F.4th at 614.
-5-
No. 22-1492, United States v. Phillips-Hall
* * *
Because Phillips-Hall hasn’t shown that it was clearly erroneous for the district court to
conclude that he committed the Metro Bar shooting, we affirm.
-6-