Filed: Feb. 05, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2003 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 02-7074 v. D.C. No. 02-CR-05-S (E.D. Oklahoma) ROBERT DALE RUCKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before KELLY, PORFILIO and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. Defendant Robert Ruckman appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2003 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 02-7074 v. D.C. No. 02-CR-05-S (E.D. Oklahoma) ROBERT DALE RUCKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before KELLY, PORFILIO and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. Defendant Robert Ruckman appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 5 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-7074
v. D.C. No. 02-CR-05-S
(E.D. Oklahoma)
ROBERT DALE RUCKMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, PORFILIO and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Robert Ruckman appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and
affirm.
I.
On January 16, 2001, Oklahoma state authorities executed a search warrant at the
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
*
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
home of Robert and Bridget Ruckman. The authorities found several firearms in the
Ruckmans’ bedroom. In particular, they found a Remington Model 700 7mm Magnum
Rifle under their bed. They also found twenty-five other firearms, including seven inside
a black gun safe, thirteen inside a green gun safe, three hanging on a gun rack above the
bed, one leaning against a dresser, and another under the bed.
Defendant was indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of firearms.
Count I concerned the 7mm rifle and Counts II and III concerned the other firearms found
in the Ruckmans’ bedroom, a firearm found in another bedroom at the home, and firearms
found during a subsequent search of Bridget Ruckman’s vehicle. Defendant pled guilty
to Count I and the government dismissed Counts II and III. At the sentencing hearing, the
government introduced evidence detailing the search of the home and facts surrounding
defendant’s 1992 conviction for second degree burglary.
The district court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of eighty-seven
months. The court determined he possessed twenty-five additional firearms and enhanced
his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(E). The court also enhanced his sentence
based upon the conclusion that his second degree burglary conviction was a “crime of
violence,” as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
II.
Non-exclusive possession
The district court applied the sentencing enhancement factor in U.S.S.G.
-2-
§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(e) (2000),1 which suggests a five-level enhancement for possessing
between twenty-five and forty-nine firearms. Defendant argues the court erred by finding
he constructively possessed the firearms found in the Ruckmans’ bedroom. Where, as
here, a defendant objects to a fact contained within the presentence report, the
government bears the burden of establishing that fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
See United States v. Shinault, 147 F.3d 1266, 1278 (10th Cir. 1998).
Ordinarily, an individual is considered to constructively possess an item when he
or she knowingly holds the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the
property. See United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997). In situations
involving joint occupancy, such as here, more is required to establish constructive
possession than dominion and control. “To prove constructive possession where there is
joint occupancy, the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show
some connection or nexus individually linking [defendant] to the [firearms.]” United
States v. Lazcano-Villalobos,
175 F.3d 838, 843 (10th Cir. 1999). The requisite nexus is
established where there is some evidence to support the plausible inference that defendant
had knowledge of and access to the firearms. See id.; United States v. Mills,
29 F.3d 545,
1
Although defendant was arrested on January 16, 2001, he was not sentenced
until May 30, 2002. Ordinarily, the district court would apply the guidelines in effect at
the time of sentencing, which would be the 2001 edition. See United States v. Turner,
285 F.3d 909, 915 n.7 (10th Cir. 2002). However, section 2K2.1 was amended on
November 1, 2001, and the amendment, as applied to defendant, would increase the level
of enhancement from five to six points. Accordingly, the district court applied the 2000
edition.
-3-
550 (10th Cir. 1994). We review the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de
novo, and its factual findings for clear error, giving due deference to the district court’s
application of the guidelines to the facts. See United States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216,
1222 (10th Cir. 2003).
We conclude the district court correctly determined that the government
established the requisite nexus between defendant and the firearms located in the
Ruckmans’ bedroom. One of the firearms was found under the Ruckmans’ bed, next to
the 7mm rifle defendant admitted possessing. The government also presented evidence
that one firearm was found leaning against a dresser in the bedroom and three firearms
were found hanging above the bed. Defendant was carrying the key to the locked gun
safe. The locked gun safe and an unlocked gun safe contained a total of twenty firearms.
Defendant’s close proximity to the firearms, the open manner in which many of the
firearms were stored, his possession of the key to the locked gun safe, and the proximity
of the firearms to the firearm he pled guilty to possessing are more than sufficient to
establish his connection to the firearms.
Defendant contends the district court failed to consider the fact that his wife also
occupied the bedroom and that she subsequently bartered several of the identified
firearms to pay her own legal bills. Defendant presents no evidence to support his
contention that his wife's joint ownership of the firearms precludes the district court from
concluding he possessed the firearms. Indeed, possession, not ownership, is the
-4-
dispositive inquiry. Defendant also argues the fact that the government failed to identify
which safe was unlocked by the key defendant possessed undercuts the district court’s
finding. This point too is of no import considering defendant does not dispute that the
key found on his person unlocked the only locked safe.
We are not persuaded by defendant's citation of United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d
1136 (10th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Mills,
29 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1994), to argue
the government has not carried its burden or proof. Those cases addressed whether there
was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the defendant for constructively possessing
the firearms at issue. While the cases are instructive, the government is not required to
meet the same burden of proof in utilizing a sentencing enhancement. See, e.g.,
Shinault,
147 F.3d at 1278 (stating the government must prove the facts upon which it bases a
sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence). In addition, both Taylor
and Mills lack a requisite level of factual similarity for a meaningful comparison with the
present case. Cf.
Taylor, 113 F.3d at 1146 (finding the evidence insufficient to convict
based upon constructive possession when three men were linked to bedroom where the
firearm was located in a closet, and the only evidence connecting defendant to the room
were receipts found in entertainment center in the room);
Mills, 29 F.3d at 549 (finding
the evidence insufficient to convict the defendant based upon constructive possession
where the evidence showed the defendant had dominion and control over room where
firearms were located, not the specific hidden compartment where firearms were
-5-
ultimately found).
Crime of violence
Defendant contends the district court erred in concluding his 1992 conviction for
second degree burglary was a “crime of violence,” as that term is used in U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.2(a) (2000). Pursuant to § 4B1.2(a), a “crime of violence” includes the crime of
“burglary of a dwelling.” To determine whether a burglary conviction constitutes a
“crime of violence,” we look first at the statutory basis of the conviction and consider
whether the statutory elements are narrowly confined to the common law definition of
burglary, i.e., the “‘unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or
structure, with intent to commit a crime.’” United States v. Hill, 53 F.3d 1151, 1153 (10th
Cir. 1995) (en banc) (quoting Taylor v. United States,
495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990)).
Defendant was convicted of violating Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1435, which
provides: “Every person who breaks and enters any building or any part of any building
. . . in which any property is kept, . . . with intent to steal any property therein or to
commit any felony.” In Hill, 53 F.3d 1153, we recognized § 1435 is broader than the
Taylor definition. Thus, we look to the underlying indictment or information and the text
of the guilty plea to determine whether defendant was charged with and admitted
committing conduct that falls within the common law definition of burglary set forth in
Taylor. See United States v. Haslip,
160 F.3d 649, 656 (10th Cir. 1998).
-6-
The information charged defendant with “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously
break[ing] and enter[ing] into a certain dwelling house.” Aplee. App. at 1. In addition,
defendant admitted that he and another person entered the house and stole several items.
Id. at 9-16. On March 25, 1992, he pled guilty to “the crime of BURGLARY, SECOND
DEGREE.”
Id. at 2. These facts support the district court's conclusion that defendant
was convicted of a “crime of violence,” as defined by § 4B1.2(a).
Defendant contends United States v. Bennett, 108 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1997),
requires a ruling in his favor on the “crime of violence” issue. In Bennett, we vacated a
sentence that was enhanced based in part upon the district court's conclusion that
defendant's prior guilty plea to second degree burglary was a “crime of violence.”
Id. at
1316. The information originally charged Bennett with first degree burglary for breaking
into a dwelling, but he agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of second degree
burglary. There was no evidence indicating whether Bennett’s guilty plea retained the
allegation that his crime involved breaking into a dwelling. Because it was conceivable
that Bennett’s acceptance of responsibility for the lesser crime could have included
elimination of the allegation that he broke into a dwelling, we determined the government
had not met its burden of proving the second degree burglary conviction was a “crime of
violence.” See
id. at 1318-19 (noting the district court’s “knowledgeable speculation” to
the contrary was insufficient).
While defendant’s “Judgment and Sentence” makes no mention of conduct
-7-
committed, Bennett does not require our reversal of the district court. Here the
information charged defendant with burglarizing “a certain dwelling house” and he pled
guilty to that crime. In addition, the district court relied exclusively upon the information,
which clearly included the allegation that defendant unlawfully entered “a certain
dwelling house.” The district court also heard testimony that the judgment and guilty plea
were based upon defendant’s burglary of “a certain dwelling house.” See Hill, 53 F.3d at
1154 (finding government need not produce text of guilty plea where charging document,
coupled with another document, sufficiently enabled court to determine whether
defendant’s prior conviction constituted a violent felony).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-8-
