United States v. Kimball , 360 F. App'x 988 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 15, 2010
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 09-1245
(D. Colorado)
SCOTT KIMBALL, (D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00249-MSK-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant-appellant Scott Kimball pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court
sentenced Kimball to seventy months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
release. Kimball appeals, arguing the district court erred when it found he did not
qualify for a reduction in his total offense level under the so-called “sporting
exception” contained in § 2K2.1(b)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“USSG”). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm Kimball’s sentence.
II. BACKGROUND
Kimball is a convicted felon who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On December 28, 2005, Kimball and his girlfriend
Melissa Anderson went to a Wal-Mart store in Colorado. At Kimball’s direction,
Anderson purchased a Winchester rifle with a scope. Kimball paid cash for the
firearm. Kimball told Anderson he would teach her to hunt with the rifle, but
after the purchase Kimball put the rifle in his vehicle and Anderson never saw it
again.
In 2007, the rifle purchased by Anderson and a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson
pistol were given to the FBI by William Bender. Bender received the firearms
from Kimball’s brother, Brett Kimball. At the sentencing hearing, Denise Pierce
testified that while Kimball was being pursued by police he called her and told
-2-
her to give the handgun to a man named Brett Gamblin. Pierce gave the handgun
to Gamblin’s girlfriend who gave it to Gamblin. Gamblin subsequently gave the
handgun to Brett Kimball.
In a written plea agreement, Kimball admitted unlawfully possessing the
rifle. Prior to sentencing, a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was
prepared. Kimball filed written objections to the PSR, asserting, inter alia, that a
base offense level of six applied because he possessed the rifle solely for lawful
sporting purposes. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2) (“If the defendant . . . possessed all
ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and
did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or
ammunition, decrease the offense level determined above to level 6.”). The
district court held a sentencing hearing at which numerous witnesses testified,
including Kimball.
Kimball testified he was in the cattle business and obtained the rifle to hunt
coyotes that were preying on his cattle. Kimball admitted he took the rifle to
California for “safety purposes” the month after Anderson purchased it. Kimball
denied owning or possessing the .40 caliber handgun. Kimball’s brother, Brett
Kimball, identified the rifle and the handgun from a photograph. Brett testified
he received the handgun from Brett Gamblin who received it from Denise Pierce.
The rifle was found in a storage area of a warehouse associated with Brett’s
business. Brett testified that Kimball, Brett Gamblin, and Michael Bender all had
-3-
access to the warehouse. The rifle and the handgun were given to Bender to put
in his gun safe. Brett also testified that some time after late 2002, he was visiting
Kimball in Colorado and observed a pistol in Kimball’s Jeep. When asked,
Kimball told Brett the FBI gave him the gun “for protection.” Brett admitted he
could not be certain whether the gun he saw in Kimball’s Jeep was an air gun or a
real handgun or whether it was the handgun recovered by the FBI.
Denise Pierce also testified at the sentencing hearing. She met Kimball in
2005 and he lived in her home with her in early 2006. Pierce recalled seeing a
rifle case in the back of Kimball’s truck and a handgun case in her bedroom
closet. Pierce testified she also saw the handgun in the center console of
Kimball’s truck. In 2006, Kimball and Pierce both used the handgun for target
shooting during a trip to Bryce Canyon, Utah. Pierce testified she was certain the
handgun was not an air pistol because she loaded the clip with bullets and picked
up the empty casings. Pierce identified the handgun given to the FBI by Michael
Bender as the handgun she and Kimball used for target shooting.
The Government also presented the testimony of William Walker, who did
some work on Kimball’s property in 2004. Walker testified he saw Kimball
wearing a holster that contained a handgun. According to Walker, he also saw a
.38 revolver laying on the front seat of Kimball’s vehicle. Walker testified
Kimball told him he was an FBI agent.
-4-
Kimball’s counsel cross-examined each of the Government’s witnesses,
attempting to expose any biases against Kimball. In addition, Kimball testified
again at the end of the sentencing hearing. He denied wearing a holster or
possessing a .38 revolver and characterized Walker’s testimony to the contrary as
an “absolute lie.” Kimball disputed Pierce’s testimony that he kept a handgun in
the bedroom closet, calling it “not true,” and further stated her testimony that he
possessed a pistol was “absolutely not true.” Kimball testified that the pistol
Brett Kimball saw in his Jeep was an air pistol.
The district court concluded Kimball failed to establish his eligibility for
the § 2K2.1(b)(2) sporting exception because his testimony was “incredible.” The
court stated Kimball testified falsely “by claiming the applicability of the sporting
purpose adjustment and denying relevant conduct concerning possession and use
of other firearms, notably the handgun.” Based on Kimball’s false testimony, the
district court applied a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, USSG
§ 3C1.1, and refused to reduce Kimball’s offense level under § 3E1.1 for
acceptance of responsibility. Based on Kimball’s Criminal History Category VI
and an adjusted base offense level of sixteen, the district court calculated the
advisory guidelines range as forty-six to fifty-seven months. The court, however,
varied upward from the advisory range and sentenced Kimball to seventy months’
imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Kimball filed
-5-
a timely notice of appeal, challenging only the denial of the § 2K2.1(b)(2)
sporting exception.
III. DISCUSSION
USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2) states in relevant part:
If the defendant . . . possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for
lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully
discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition,
decrease the offense level . . . to level 6.
This court reviews for clear error the district court’s finding that Kimball did not
intend to use the rifle solely for sporting purposes. United States v. Bayles, 310
F.3d 1302, 1308 (10th Cir. 2002). The defendant bears the burden of
demonstrating that § 2K2.1(b)(2) applies. United States v. Collins, 313 F.3d
1251, 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). The application notes to § 2K2.1(b)(2) state that
whether firearms are possessed for “lawful sporting purposes or collection” is
“determined by the surrounding circumstances” which include “the number and
type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and
circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s criminal
history (e.g., prior convictions for offenses involving firearms), and the extent to
which possession was restricted by local law.” USSG. § 2K2.1(b)(2), cmt. n.6.
The district court’s finding that Kimball did not intend to use the rifle solely for
sporting purposes was based on the foregoing factors and its determination that
-6-
Kimball was not a credible witness. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the
district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.
As to the district court’s credibility determinations, this court does not
“review the credibility of a witness’ testimony on appeal.” United States v.
Martin, 163 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 1998). Thus, we will not question the
district court’s conclusion that Kimball testified falsely when he (1) stated he
purchased the rifle solely for hunting and (2) told the court Pierce and Walker
were lying when they testified he possessed a handgun. The court supported its
credibility finding by noting Kimball is intelligent and articulate but “also
deceitful and deceptive.” As the district court stated, nine of Kimball’s ten
previous felony convictions involved false statements or deceit. The court also
referenced the false statements Kimball made to Brett Kimball and William
Walker when the two men asked Kimball about a handgun in his possession.
Kimball falsely told them he was working for the FBI. Finally, the district court
noted that the offense of conviction itself was “premised upon deception”—the
rifle was purchased by Melissa Anderson but Kimball immediately took
possession of it and Anderson never saw it again.
The court’s ruling that Kimball failed to meet his burden of proving he
intended to use the rifle solely for hunting purposes is also amply supported by
the record. Although Kimball testified he obtained the rifle to protect his cattle
from coyotes, the Government presented evidence the cattle were moved to a
-7-
different location before Kimball acquired the rifle. There was also testimony
that Kimball left Colorado, taking the rifle with him, less than a month after he
took possession of it.
IV. CONCLUSION
The district court did not err when it declined to reduce Kimball’s offense
level pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(2). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by
the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-8-