Before opening my own firm, I worked on the appellate team that handled this federal felon-in-possession case. As part of that team, I drafted substantial portions of the briefing that raised the core sentencing-guideline issues addressed by the Eleventh Circuit. Although I was not listed as counsel of record, I materially contributed to the legal research and written advocacy that shaped the arguments on appeal.
What Happened
The district court enhanced the defendant’s sentencing range from approximately 27–33 months to 151–188 months by applying the attempted first-degree murder cross-reference—a massive increase that required specific factual findings under the Sentencing Guidelines.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling
The Eleventh Circuit held that the enhancement was imposed without the legally required findings and therefore vacated the 180-month sentence and remanded for resentencing. Specifically, the Court found that the district court:
- Did not identify evidence showing the firearm was used, possessed, or transferred in connection with an attempted killing.
- Did not make findings showing any substantial step toward attempted first-degree murder.
- Relied only on a conclusion that the defendant had “planned” a shooting, which the Court made clear was legally insufficient to trigger the murder cross-reference.
Because these threshold findings were missing, the Court could not conduct meaningful appellate review.
Outcome
- The 15-year sentence was vacated.
- The case returns to the district court for a new sentencing hearing, with the improper enhancement removed unless the government can meet its evidentiary burden.
Why This Matters
Even in cases where an enhancement seems like a foregone conclusion, careful guideline analysis and precise appellate briefing can dramatically change the outcome. This case reflects the kind of detailed, guideline-focused advocacy I bring to every federal matter I handle.
You can read the full Eleventh Circuit opinion here .