United States v. Kerr

Opinion

Case: 24-10661 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-10661 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 17, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce

United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tyler Logan Kerr,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-61-1

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Tyler Logan Kerr was convicted of possessing unregistered firearms.

For the first time on appeal, Kerr contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement based upon a determination that the offense involved at least three but less than eight firearms. Specifically, he

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-10661 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2025

No. 24-10661

contends that the district court erroneously included two silencers in that count.

Because Kerr failed to preserve this issue in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 2021). To prevail on plain error review, Kerr must identify: (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies all three requirements, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

Kerr fails to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred by counting a silencer as a “firearm” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). See U.S.S.G. 2K2.1 cmt. n.1 (citing 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.