Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Stinson

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

April 22, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CAMARI STINSON

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE.

         The Defendant, Camari Stinson, has pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon from December 29, 2014, continuing to February 25, 2015 (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), distributing a controlled substance on January 29, 2015 (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the January 29 drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).

         The Defendant's plea of guilty to the charged offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm did not include as a factual basis any conduct related to a shooting on December 29, 2014. When the probation officer drafted a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in preparation for sentencing, it included as relevant conduct the Defendant's participation in a shooting on December 29, 2014. The Defendant objects to the inclusion of these factual statements and the resulting enhancements to his guideline range.

         This Opinion and Order resolves the Defendant's objection to the PSR.

         BACKGROUND

         The PSR contains a description of the offense conduct based on information that federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) obtained from a Confidential Informant (CI) through that CI's reports, his monitored meetings with the Defendant, and a controlled drug buy, in which an undercover ATF agent also participated. The offense conduct also contains information arising out of a traffic stop of a vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger on February 25, 2015. The probation officer noted the following:

For guideline calculation purposes, offense conduct, including all relevant conduct, involves the defendant's use of the above firearm in an attempted murder resulting in serious bodily injury to the victim of the offense. In addition, this officer will consider the fact that the defendant distributed 3.38 grams of cocaine. As confirmed by the government and investigative documents, the defendant shot multiple times and told the CI that he was trying to kill the victim. He further stated he shot someone “in the ass” when he was at his cousin's 16th birthday party on December 29, 2014. The CI relayed this information to ATF and was sent back to get these admissions on an audio recording on January 15, 2015. On said date, the defendant had the firearm on him and showed it to the CI and indicated it was the one used in the shooting. In addition, on January 29, 2015, when the defendant delivered cocaine to the CI, in the presence of the UC, he again talked about using the gun to shoot someone. He had the firearm on his person at the time and showed it to the CI and UC. This interaction was both video and audio recorded. The victim was shot in the buttocks and had to go to the hospital to have the bullet removed.

(PSR ¶ 25.)

         The relevant conduct impacted the base offense level. When calculating the offense level, the probation officer wrote,

The guideline for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is USSG §2K2.1. Pursuant to USSG §2K2.1(c)(1)(A), §2X1.1 and then §2A2.1 are referenced when determining the offense level. USSG §2A2.1 provides a base offense level of 27. The base offense level is then derived from an offense level 27 plus 2 because the victim sustained serious bodily injury. USSG §§2A2.1(a)(2) and (b)(1)(B).

(PSR ¶ 31 (setting base offense level at 29).)

         The Defendant filed an objection to the PSR that centers around the recitation of the offense conduct, particularly as it relates to relevant conduct for the felon in possession charge, including whether the Defendant used the firearm in an attempted murder that resulted in serious bodily injury.[1] The Defendant also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

         After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas [ECF No. 117], and set an evidentiary hearing on the objection to the PSR. The objection now ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.