United States v. Ferguson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 24, 2003
Docket02-30975
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ferguson (United States v. Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ferguson, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 24, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk Case No. 02-30975 ___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee v.

ANDRE R FERGUSON

Defendant-Appellant

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (02-CR-18) ___________________________________________________

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

At the defendant’s sentencing hearing, the district court

increased the defendant’s criminal history category one level (from

level I to level II) and increased his total offense level five

points (from a total offense level of 16 to a total offense level

of 21). On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the district

court erred in upwardly departing from the Sentencing Guidelines

regarding both the criminal history category and the total offense

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. level and, if not, whether the degree to which the district court

departed is reasonable.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The defendant Andre R. Ferguson, doing business as Andre Arms

(“Andre’s”), operated a firearms store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

In this capacity, Ferguson came under the scrutiny of the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) for allegedly selling

firearms to convicted felons between March 23, 1998 and February

14, 2000. Subsequently, on April 19, 2002, Ferguson entered a plea

of guilty to five counts of selling firearms to prohibited persons

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1).1

In accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6), which applies to

convictions under § 922(d), the pre-sentence report (“PSR”)

assigned Ferguson a base offense level of 14.2 In addition to the

five firearms listed in the information, the PSR provided that

Ferguson unlawfully sold seventeen other firearms, bringing the

1 The district court approved the waiver of indictment and filed a superseding bill of information charging Ferguson with five counts of selling firearms to prohibited persons. 2 Section 2K2.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, entitled, “Unlawful Receipt, Possession, or Transportation of Firearms or Ammunition; Prohibited Transactions Involving Firearms or Ammunition,” provides, in relevant part:

(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the Greatest): . . . (6) 14, if the defendant (A) was a prohibited person at the time the defendant committed the instant offense; or (B) is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d).

U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL, § 2K2.1(a)(6) (2001).

2 total number of firearms at issue for sentencing purposes to

twenty-two. Under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B), because Ferguson’s offense

involved between eight and twenty-four firearms, his offense level

was increased by four levels to 18.3 After subtracting two levels

for acceptance of responsibility, Ferguson’s base offense level was

reduced to 16. Because Ferguson had no prior juvenile

adjudications, adult criminal convictions or other arrests, his

total criminal history points totaled zero. As a result, he was

assigned a criminal history category of level I. A criminal

history category of level I and an accompanying total offense level

of 16 results in a guideline range of twenty-one to twenty-seven

months.

After giving Ferguson notice that it intended to upwardly

depart, the district court heard argument regarding the merits of

the intended departure. Following this (second) sentencing

hearing, the district court upwardly departed from a criminal

history category of level I to a criminal history category of level

II and from a total offense level of 16 to a total offense level of

3 Sub-section 2K1.2(b)(1)(B) provides, in relevant part:

(b) Specific Offense Characteristics (1) If the offense involved three or more firearms, increase as follows: . . . (B) 8-24 add 4 (C) 25-99 add 6 (D) 100-199 add 8 (E) 200 or more add 10 . . . .

Id. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B).

3 21, resulting in a guideline range of forty-one to fifty-one

months. Ferguson was sentenced to forty-eight months on each

count, to be served concurrently.

On September 13, 2001, a final judgment was entered by the

district court. In addition to this term of imprisonment, the

district court imposed a three-year term of supervised release for

each count, to run concurrently and imposed a $500.00 special

assessment. Ferguson timely appeals from this judgment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of a sentence under the guidelines is “confined to

determining whether a sentence was imposed in violation of law or

as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing

guidelines.” United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir.

1992). Further, we apply an abuse of discretion standard to the

district court’s decision to depart upward and will “affirm a

departure from the Guidelines ‘if the district court offers

acceptable reasons for the departure and the departure is

reasonable.’” See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th

Cir. 1994) (en banc)(quoting United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d

658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc)).

III. ANALYSIS OF THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE

To support its request for an upward departure, the government

called several witnesses. First, Special Agent Paul Rash with the

ATF testified that during the ATF’s investigation of Ferguson

4 (which spanned over ten years), Ferguson allowed a confidential

informant, whom Ferguson believed to be a convicted felon, to pay

for and take possession of firearms over six times.

As further explained by Agent Rash, a firearms trace results

when the dealer responsible for selling a gun recovered from a

crime scene is contacted by the ATF to reveal the purchaser of the

firearm. Agent Rash testified that Ferguson had been contacted

approximately 124 times regarding guns recovered at crime scenes.

Agent Rash further testified regarding the results of a

search conducted (pursuant to a search warrant) of Andre’s, and

specifically detailed discrepancies in Ferguson’s records and

receipts uncovered during the search. For example, Agent Rash

discussed Ferguson’s Acquisition and Disposition book (the “A&D

book”) and his ATF Form 4473's. A firearms licensee is required

to log acquisitions and dispositions of firearms in his A&D book

in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 923's licensing provisions, and

Form 4473's are required to be completed by a firearm purchaser to

allow for the purchaser’s criminal background check. As to a

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Koon v. United States
518 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Jerry Lynn Webb
950 F.2d 226 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Benjamin J. Shipley, Jr.
963 F.2d 56 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. David Lambert
984 F.2d 658 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Robert Ian McKenzie
991 F.2d 203 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Philip Scott Ashburn
38 F.3d 803 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Ferguson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ferguson-ca5-2003.