United States v. Door

• Decision Date: 28 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-30213,19-30213
• Citation: 996 F.3d 606
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Randale DOOR, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

996 F.3d 606

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Kenneth Randale DOOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30213

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 4, 2020 Seattle, Washington

Filed April 28, 2021

Carlton F. Gunn ; Law Office of Carlton F. Gunn, Pasadena, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Michael S. Morgan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Brian T. Moran, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Jay S. Bybee and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and James Alan Soto,^* District Judge.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Kenneth Randale Door was convicted in 2014 for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon convicted of a crime of violence in possession of body armor. Relying on the Supreme Court's intervening opinion in Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019), Door argues that his convictions cannot stand because the government failed to prove, the indictment failed to allege, and the jury instructions failed to require that he knew of his prohibited statuses. Door further asserts that the district court erred in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement during sentencing. Finally, Door challenges his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A. Search, Indictment, and Trial

Kenneth Door has an extensive criminal history, including convictions for burglary, theft, assault, and harassment. In 2011, an informant told an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that Door possessed guns and was selling methamphetamine out of his home. Because Door was on probation in Washington, the agent contacted a Washington State Community Corrections officer, who conducted a probation search of Door's house in Tacoma. The search revealed two pistols, multiple rounds of ammunition for the pistols, two military grade ballistic vests, an explosive device known as a "seal bomb," two digital scales, drug packaging materials, and two drug pipes containing methamphetamine residue. Door was arrested shortly thereafter.

While in the county jail, and before he was indicted on federal charges, Door requested a meeting with his federal case agent. During that visit, Door admitted that the guns, vests, and seal bomb belonged to him. After the agent testified at Door's suppression hearing, Door told his attorney that he intended to have the agent killed. The attorney asked to be removed from the case and reported the threats to the government. After his trial, Door made additional threats in front of other inmates that he would have the case agent and his former attorney killed.

In March 2012, Door was indicted in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e) ; a felon convicted of a crime of violence in possession of body armor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 931(a) and 924(a)(7) ; and, a felon in possession of explosives in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(i)(1) and 844(a)(1). Door entered the following stipulation regarding his felon and violent felon status:

Prior to November 9, 2011, Kenneth Door, the defendant herein, had been convicted of a felony crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. That is a crime of violence, as defined by law, and therefore was a convicted felon and a person convicted of a felony that is a crime of violence at the time of the events that are the subject of this prosecution.

Door proceeded to trial and was convicted on all counts.

B. Sentencing and First Appeal

The Probation Office (Probation) recommended a base offense level of 24 due to "at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." Probation also recommended a number of Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) enhancements, including for possession of a destructive device (seal bomb), possession of a stolen firearm, possession of firearms in connection with another felony offense (drug trafficking), and obstruction of justice (based on Door's threats to kill the case agent and others). Probation also concluded that Door was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on his prior convictions for attempting to elude a police vehicle, multiple second-degree burglary convictions, and second-degree assault with a deadly weapon.¹ The enhancements, combined with Door's criminal history category of VI, produced a Guidelines range of 262–327 months. Probation recommended 300 months. Over Door's objections, the district court found that the enhancements and the ACCA applied and sentenced Door to 300 months.

On direct appeal, we found that the destructive device enhancement did not apply to the seal bomb, and that the district court made insufficient findings on the obstruction of justice and the "in connection with another felony" enhancements. United States v. Door , 647 F. App'x 755, 757 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended by 668 F. App'x 784 (9th Cir. 2016). We initially deferred ruling on the ACCA issue but ultimately held that Door's burglary convictions were not violent felonies under the ACCA and vacated Door's sentence accordingly. United States v. Door , 656 F. App'x 376, 376–77 (9th Cir. 2016).

C. Re-sentencing and Second Appeal

On remand, Probation again recommended a base offense level of 24, reasoning that Door's prior Washington state convictions for second-degree assault with a deadly weapon and felony harassment constituted crimes of violence. Probation further recommended enhancements for possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm in connection with another felony, and obstruction of justice. The enhancements, coupled with Door's criminal history category of VI, produced a Guidelines range of 210–262 months. Probation recommended a 276-month sentence due to Door's extensive criminal history.

Over Door's objections, the district court determined at sentencing that the second-degree assault and felony harassment convictions qualified as crimes of violence under the required categorical approach. The district court also ruled that the various enhancements were supported by sufficient evidence. During sentencing, the district court noted its "long-standing criticism" of the categorical approach but acknowledged that it was "duty-bound" to re-sentence Door in accordance with the law. The district court imposed the recommended sentence of 276 months, followed by 5 years of supervised release. On Door's second appeal, we ruled that a felony harassment conviction is a crime of violence for Guidelines purposes but that Door's conviction for second-degree assault is not and remanded accordingly for a second re-sentencing. United States v. Door , 917 F.3d 1146, 1152–55 (9th Cir. 2019).²

D. Second Re-sentencing and Current Appeal

At the second re-sentencing, Probation recommended a base offense level of 20 based on Door's felony harassment conviction. Probation also recommended enhancements for possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm in connection with another felony, and obstruction of justice. The enhancements, coupled with Door's criminal history category of VI, produced a Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months. Probation again recommended 276 months. The government did likewise. Door objected to all the enhancements.

At the start of the re-sentencing hearing, the district court again expressed frustration with the categorical approach jurisprudence. Of Door, the district court stressed, "I consider Mr. Door to perhaps be the most dangerous defendant I have had in 18 or 19 years .... He did everything and then more to justify his sentence, with the threats." Before imposing the sentence, the district court made clear that it had heard argument and reviewed all of the material submitted from both sides. In response to defense counsel's argument that Door's recent good behavior in prison merited mitigation, the district court agreed that re-sentencing afforded an opportunity for "a mid-course correction" but noted that Door was being sentenced for his past behavior, "which is very serious." The district court further observed that "[t]he guidelines are a guide, unless they are not."

In imposing the sentence, the district court adopted the factual assertions in the PSR and applied the sentencing enhancements. Relevant to this appeal, the district court found—over Door's objection—that the obstruction of justice enhancement was warranted because it involved "the worst kind of abuse of our system, including threats to officers." The district court then adopted the recommendation from Probation and the government for 276 months, followed by three years of supervised release.

In the present appeal, Door raises four issues: (1) whether his felon in possession of firearm and violent felon in possession of body armor convictions must be vacated because the government failed to prove, the indictment failed to allege, and the jury instructions failed to require that he knew of his prohibited statuses when he possessed the firearms and body armor, as required by Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019) ; (2) whether the district erred in applying the Guideline enhancement for obstruction of justice; (3) whether his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; and (4) whether we should reassign the case in the event of remand. We will consider each issue in turn. Because we conclude that there was no error in the first three issues raised, we need not reach the question of reassignment, which in any event has been mooted by the retirement of the district judge who imposed the sentence.

II. KNOWING POSSESSION AND REHAIF

We first...