United States v. Shawn Rockwell ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 23 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   22-30070
    Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No.
    3:20-cr-00097-SLG-MMS-1
    v.
    SHAWN LOUIS ROCKWELL,                            MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 17, 2023**
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Defendant Shawn Rockwell appeals the sentence imposed following his
    guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . “We
    review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines,” and
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    “[w]e review for clear error the factual findings underlying the sentencing
    decision.” United States v. Jordan, 
    256 F.3d 922
    , 926 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations
    omitted). We affirm.
    Rockwell argues the district court erred in applying the cross-reference in
    U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) to the aggravated assault guideline because the government
    failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was involved in a shooting
    in which he intended to cause bodily injury.
    Section 2K2.1 is the sentencing guideline for felon in possession of a
    firearm. The cross-reference in § 2K2.1(c)(1) provides that if a defendant “used or
    possessed any firearm . . . cited in the offense of conviction in connection with the
    commission . . . of another offense,” then the court must apply § 2X1.1 with
    respect to that other offense, “if the resulting offense level is greater than that
    determined” under § 2K2.1. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). Section 2X1.1 directs the
    court to apply “[t]he base offense level from the guideline for the substantive
    offense, plus any adjustments from such guideline.” U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1.
    Section § 2A2.2 is the sentencing guideline for aggravated assault. This
    guideline applies if a person committed a felonious assault involving “a dangerous
    weapon with intent to cause bodily injury.” U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, cmt. n.1. Here, it is
    undisputed that the district court’s application of § 2A2.2 would have “an
    extremely disproportionate effect on [Rockwell’s] sentence relative to the offense
    2
    of conviction.” Jordan, 256 F.3d at 926. Thus, for the district court to apply the
    cross-reference in § 2K2.1(c)(1) and sentence Rockwell under § 2A2.2, the
    government was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
    Rockwell committed aggravated assault. See id.
    There was clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s
    application of the aggravated assault guideline.1 At sentencing, the government
    presented evidence that Rockwell used a .40 caliber handgun to shoot into the door
    of a trailer home in Anchorage on February 1, 2018. FBI agent Rodney Russell
    testified that the handgun used in the shooting was traced to Samantha McIntosh,
    who was Rockwell’s ex-girlfriend. McIntosh told police that Rockwell provided
    her with money to purchase the gun on the day of the shooting and that she gave
    Rockwell the gun after she bought it. She also told police that Rockwell instructed
    her the day after the shooting to report the gun and her vehicle stolen. Officers
    also recovered security videos of the shooting, which were played at the hearing.
    Agent Russell testified that McIntosh positively identified Rockwell as the shooter
    1
    A recent Ninth Circuit opinion expressed doubt about whether we should require
    sentencing factors to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, noting that our
    Circuit “stands alone” in maintaining this rule after the Supreme Court’s decision
    in United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005). United States v. Lucas, 
    70 F.4th 1218
    , 1221 (9th Cir. 2023). In any event, adopting a preponderance of the
    evidence standard would not change the outcome here. Because we conclude that
    there was clear and convincing evidence, we would necessarily conclude that the
    lower standard had been met.
    3
    in the video footage based on his clothing and the shape of his nose.
    Rockwell raises two challenges to the evidence presented, but neither are
    availing. First, he claims that he could not be conclusively identified from the
    videos because the shooter wore a partial mask. But Rockwell’s clothing and other
    physical attributes were sufficiently visible in the videos for McIntosh to recognize
    him. The record also contains other evidence strongly suggesting that Rockwell
    possessed the handgun on the day of the shooting.
    Second, Rockwell argues there was insufficient evidence he intended to
    cause bodily injury because the shooter in the video fired only at the door’s lock.
    The government presented evidence, however, that the shooter knew the trailer was
    occupied when he shot into the door; in the videos, a woman can be heard yelling
    from inside the trailer just before the shooting. Evidence that Rockwell shot
    multiple times into the door of a home that he knew was occupied was sufficient to
    support a finding that he intended to cause that person bodily injury.
    The court also did not procedurally err in applying § 2A2.2. See United
    States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Rockwell’s offense
    level under § 2A2.2, after accounting for relevant enhancements and reductions,
    was 18. This offense level was greater than Rockwell’s calculated offense level
    under § 2K2.1, which was 15. The court therefore appropriately sentenced
    Rockwell to 60 months imprisonment according to the guidelines for § 2A2.2. See
    4
    U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1).
    AFFIRMED.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-30070

Filed Date: 8/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/23/2023