U.S. v. Kirk

Decision Date22 January 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-3020,89-3020
Citation894 F.2d 1162
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney KIRK, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Michael L. Harris, Asst. Federal Public Defender and Charles D. Anderson, Federal Public Defender, Dist. of Kan., Kansas City, Kan., for defendant-appellant.

Julie A. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr., U.S. Atty. and Kurt J. Shermuk, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, EBEL, Circuit Judge and KANE, * Senior District Judge.

KANE, Senior District Judge.

This appeal presents an issue of first impression for this court. Following his conviction based on a plea of guilty, Rodney Kirk contends his sentence for unlawful receipt of a sawed-off shotgun was improper under the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, Kirk claims he was entitled to a six-point reduction in the offense level upon which sentencing was based because he possessed the shotgun as part of a collection and intended to mount it on the wall of his den. See Guideline Section 2K2.1. His presentence report, however, recommended that this point reduction be denied. The report stated that Kirk had made no effort to mount the gun before it was seized and sawed-off shotguns have few legitimate uses. The court accepted the recommendation. Kirk contends the burden was improperly placed on him to establish that he was entitled to the point reduction.

The district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts is entitled to due deference; however, the legal conclusions with respect to the guidelines are subject to de novo review. United States v. Smith, 888 F.2d 720, 723 (10th Cir.1989). Since the allocation of the burden of proof with respect to a guideline section is a legal issue, we review de novo.

Guideline Section 2K2.2, now renumbered as Section 2K2.1 as part of the recent amendments to the Guidelines, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, App. C, amendment 189, provides that the defendant's base offense level for the unlawful receipt, possession or transportation of firearms should be decreased to a level six "[i]f the defendant obtained or possessed the firearm or ammunition solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection." U.S.S.G. Sec. 2K2.1(b)(1). The application note to this section states that the availability of this section should be determined by the surrounding circumstances. Id., comment. (n. 2). "Relevant circumstances include, among others, the number and type of firearms (sawed-off shotguns, for example, have few legitimate uses) and ammunition, the location and circumstances of possession, the nature of the defendant's criminal history (e.g., whether involving firearms), and the extent to which possession was restricted by local laws." Id. Neither the guideline itself nor the application notes address which party bears the burden of proof as to the defendant's entitlement to a reduction under this section.

Kirk argues that in sentencing, as with other criminal matters, the government must bear the burden of proof on all issues. The government, on the other hand, says it should bear the burden of proof with respect to matters that would increase the sentence, and the defendant should bear the burden as to matters that would reduce the sentence.

Both parties to this appeal rely heavily on pre-guidelines cases. E.g., McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2418, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986) ("[s]entencing courts have traditionally heard evidence and found facts without any prescribed burden of proof at all"); United States v. Lee, 818 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir.) (government bears burden of proof on issue leading to increase in sentence), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956, 108 S.Ct. 350, 98 L.Ed.2d 376 (1987); United States v. Schell, 692 F.2d 672 (10th Cir.1982) (dangerous special offender status must be shown by preponderance of the evidence). Kirk also cites United States v. Dolan, 701 F.Supp. 138 (E.D.Tenn.1988), one of the first post-guideline cases to rule on this issue. In Dolan, the court adhered to pre-guideline authority which it viewed as placing the burden of proof on the government to establish entitlement to an increase or decrease in a sentence. Id. at 139. Despite the holding in Dolan, the rule adopted by the several courts that have recently considered this issue is consistent with the government's position. In United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 346, 107 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), the Fourth Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that due process required the government to bear the burden of proving the defendant should not receive any particular mitigating adjustment to his sentence.

Here, the guideline in question [for acceptance of responsibility] involved a potential decrease in the offense level which would have had the effect of lowering Urrego's ultimate sentencing range. In these circumstances, we hold that the defendant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the applicability of the mitigating factor in question. We therefore reject the position advanced by Urrego and expressed by the district court in Dolan.

879 F.2d at 1239. Several district courts have followed suit. See United States v. Ligon, 716 F.Supp. 1009, 1011 (W.D.Ky.1989); United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • US v. Nelson, Cr. A. No. 89-20081-01.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 25, 1990
    ...889 F.2d 477, 480 (3d Cir.1989) (citing 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.06 (1984)). 30 See United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir.1990) (defendant has burden of establishing by preponderance of evidence applicability of mitigating factor for sentencing dec......
  • U.S. v. Phelps
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 28, 1994
    ...evidence"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 829, 111 S.Ct. 88, 112 L.Ed.2d 60 (1990); accord Easterling, 21 F.2d at 1077; United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1163 (10th Cir.1990). The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to review the history and background that led to the enactment of Sec. 9......
  • U.S. v. Smith, 96-1245
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 31, 1997
    ...of the true nature of Say No Now. 12 The allocation of burden of proof is a legal issue subject to de novo review. United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1163 (10th Cir.1990). Our review of the record on appeal convinces us this argument is without merit. The district court did not place the......
  • O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao v. Ashcroft, No. 02-2323.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 4, 2003
    ..."[e]vidence which does not preponderate or is in equipoise simply fails to meet the required burden of proof." United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990). The Government "failed to build adequate record" demonstrating danger to Uniao do Vegetal members' health from sacramen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Parity, disparity, and adversariality: first principles of sentencing.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 58 No. 1, October 2005
    • October 1, 2005
    ...crime ... charged." (31.) Id. at 363-64. (32.) U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL [section] 1B1.1 (2004). (33.) See United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that the government bears the burden of proof for sentence increases under the Guidelines, while the defend......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT