USA v. Cowan, 98-5837

Decision Date27 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-5837,98-5837
Citation196 F.3d 646
Parties(6th Cir. 1999) United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Cowan, Defendant-Appellant. Argued:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Stuart J. Canale, Asst. U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Thomas J. Gibson, Asst. Fed. Pub. Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Before: KEITH, CONTIE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CONTIE, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Ronald Cowan ("Cowan") let a friend use his gun to commit an armed robbery. On appeal, Cowan asserts that he should not be held accountable for his friend's use of the firearm under United States Sentencing Guideline §2B3.1(b)(2)(C). We reject Cowan's argument and therefore affirm the district court's sentencing determinations.

I.

On July 10, 1997, a young man (hereinafter "the juvenile") carrying a sawed-off rifle entered a Payless Beauty Supply store in Memphis, Tennessee. The juvenile pointed the weapon at the store clerk's face and demanded money. The clerk opened the cash register and pushed the alarm. The juvenile reached over the counter, grabbed money from the cash register, turned and ran from the store. 1 A witness to the robbery recognized, and later identified, the juvenile. On July 14, 1997, police arrested the juvenile and charged him with aggravated robbery.

The juvenile told police that he used Cowan's gun to commit the robbery. 2 When questioned by the police, Cowan acknowledged that he gave the sawed-off rifle to the juvenile knowing that he intended to do a "sting" because he needed some cash. Though Cowan told the officers that he did not know who the juvenile planned to rob, he admitted that he knew that the juvenile had committed numerous robberies in the past.

On August 28, 1997, Cowan was charged with possessing an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§5841, 5861(d) and 5871 in a one-count indictment3. On November 7, 1997, Cowan entered a guilty plea.

In Cowan's Presentence Investigation Report, the United States Probation Officer recommended that Cowan's offense level be increased by five levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) because the juvenile used his firearm to commit the robbery. On May 21, 1998, the day before his sentencing hearing, Cowan objected to the five-level enhancement proposed by the probation officer. Specifically, Cowan asserted:

The proof shows that the defendant knew that the juvenile would use the firearm in "another offense," i.e., other than the defendant's offense of unlawful possession of the firearm, but there is no evidence that the defendant knew that the juvenile would rob the Payless store. Nor is there any evidence that the defendant participated in any manner in the robbery itself. . . .

Since the defendant did not know the manner in which the juvenile would conduct his "sting," the defendant did not conspire with the juvenile to rob the Payless store.... The criminal plan in this case was the robbery of the Payless store, a fact of which the defendant was unaware. . . . Because there was no conspiracy in this case or jointly undertaken criminal activity, the five-level enhancement of Section 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) should not be added to the base offense level of 20 found in Section 2B1.1(a). The total offense level of 22 found in paragraph 26 of the presentence report should be reduced to 17, and with a Criminal History Category of II, his guideline range should be 27-33 months.

Defendant's Position Paper at 4-6.

On May 22, 1998, the district court sentenced Cowan to a 46-month term of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. 4

Cowan filed his timely notice of appeal on May 29, 1998.

II. Standard of Review

"This court reviews a district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and the district court's findings of fact thereunder for clear error." United States v. Jarman, 144 F.3d 912, 914 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). See also 18 U.S.C. §3742(e) ("The court of appeals shall give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts.").

The Relevance of U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) to This Action

Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(a), the base offense level for robbery is 20. If a firearm was brandished, displayed or possessed during the robbery, five levels are added to the base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, the district court increased Cowan's base offense by five levels pursuant to §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) because the juvenile used Cowan's gun to commit the robbery. On appeal, Cowan asserts that the district court erred by increasing his offense level under §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) because he did not aid and abet the robbery, and because he did not engage in joint criminal activity with the juvenile. Cowan therefore asserts that the district court improperly calculated his sentencing guideline range:

Section 2K2.1(c)(1) of the guidelines, by cross-reference to §2X1.1, provides that the base offense level of twenty (20) contained in the robbery guideline, §2B3.1, should apply in this case. Section 2X1.1 requires that all adjustments to the base offense level be added, but these adjustments may not be utilized unless the conditions of §1B1.3 are met. The district court committed error in finding that the defendant aided and abetted the juvenile's commission of the robbery offense. In addition, assuming that the juvenile's brandishing of a firearm was foreseeable when the defendant lent him the weapon to perform a "sting," there is no evidence that the robbery was the result of "jointly undertaken criminal activity" as required by §1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Since the defendant did not aid and abet the robbery or the brandishing of the firearm, nor did the defendant engage in joint criminal activity with the juvenile, the five-level enhancement should not have been imposed.

Appellant's Brief at 8.

In response, the United States asserts that the district court properly applied the five-level enhancement because Cowan should have foreseen that the juvenile would brandish the firearm during a robbery:

Section 2K2.1 of the sentencing guidelines contains a cross-reference provision to be applied when the defendant used or possessed a firearm in connection with the commission or attempted commission of another federal, state, or local offense. In this case, the Court made a factual finding that the Defendant, by giving the juvenile the sawed-off rifle to be used in a robbery, effectively aided and abetted the juvenile in the robbery. The Court further found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the weapon would be brandished during the armed robbery; therefore, the Defendant should be held accountable for that conduct as well. Using the cross-referencing provisions of the guidelines, the probation office properly calculated the Defendant's base offense level under Section 2B3.1(a) of the sentencing guidelines. In addition, the probation office calculated an additional five-level enhancement under Section 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), since the firearm had been brandished during the robbery.

Here, the facts clearly demonstrate that the Defendant should have foreseen that the juvenile would brandish the weapon; therefore, the district court did not err by applying the five-level enhancement.

Appellee's Brief at 6. We must therefore determine whether the district court properly applied the five-level adjustment under §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) in light of the juvenile's use of Cowan's firearm during the robbery. 5

Cowan pled guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length (i.e., a sawed-off rifle). During Cowan's sentencing hearing, the United States established that Cowan gave the unregistered sawed-off rifle to the juvenile to use in a "sting." Though Cowan asserts that he did not know that the juvenile intended to rob the Payless Beauty Supply store, he knew that the juvenile had committed robberies in the past.

The relevant sentencing guideline provision, U.S.S.G. §2K2.1 ("Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition), contains a cross-reference provision which applies when a defendant uses or possesses a firearm in connection with the commission, or attempted commission, of another offense:

If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission or attempted commission of another offense, or possessed or transferred a firearm or ammunition with knowledge or intent that it would be used or possessed in connection with another offense, apply

(A) §2X1.1 (Attempt, Solicitation, or Conspiracy) in respect to that other offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above....

U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)(1) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, if the base offense level under §2X1.1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • United States v. Howell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 8, 2021
    ...is not limited to selecting only "offenses that were charged in the indictment or that resulted in a conviction." United States v. Cowan , 196 F.3d 646, 649 (6th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Callahan , 801 F.3d 606, 629 (6th Cir. 2015).Here, the district court ch......
  • United States v. Callahan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 8, 2015
    ...or that resulted in a conviction.’ ” United States v. Grimes, 348 Fed.Appx. 138, 140 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Cowan, 196 F.3d 646, 649 (6th Cir.1999) ); see also United States v. Cooper, 739 F.3d 873, 884 (6th Cir.2014). Because the most serious “other felony offense” that H......
  • U.S. v. Dupree
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 17, 2003
    ...of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and the district court's findings of fact thereunder for clear error." United States v. Cowan, 196 F.3d 646, 647-48 (6th Cir.1999). DISCUSSION A. Hobbs Dupree was convicted of racketeering conspiracy and armed robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, whic......
  • Villa-Rodriguez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • May 14, 2013
    ...of kidnapping. See United States v. Huff, No. 3:10-CR-73, 2012 WL 1565442, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. May 2, 2012)(citing United States v. Cowen, 196 F.3d 646, 649 (6th Cir.1999) ("[T]he sentencing guidelines do not restrict § 2K2.1(c), the cross-reference provision, to offenses that were charged in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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