In United States v. Chatman, No. 23-7895, a panel of the Second Circuit (Kearse, Sullivan, Robinson, JJ.) summarily affirmed an above-Guidelines sentence for Talmage Chatman, finding no error in the district court’s application of a four-level enhancement based on a video of Mr. Chatman firing the gun or in the district court’s consideration of a pending state indictment in pronouncing sentence.
The district court applied a four-level enhancement by determining that Mr. Chatman was committing another felony (attempted assault) while unlawfully possessing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It based that finding on a video showed Mr. Chatman firing a weapon while walking down a street, though no other individuals or targets were depicted. Thereafter, the district court considered the fact that Mr. Chatman had been arrested and indicted for a state-law narcotics violation while his federal case was pending, though the state case remained open. Although the parties both agreed that a 15-21 month sentence was appropriate, and the presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended a 24-30 month sentence, the district court imposed a 48-month sentence.
On appeal, Mr. Chatman argued that the district court erred in applying the four-level enhancement because the video did show where he was aiming when he fired the gun. Citing United States v. Legross, 529 F.3d 470 (2008), Mr. Chatman asserted that the video made it no more likely that he targeted a person than that he targeted a vehicle or the air. He also argued that United States v. Juwa, 508 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2007), precluded the district court from considering his pending state indictment, which contained no sworn affidavits or other supporting evidence. He finally argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Second Circuit rejected all three arguments. As to the four-level enhancement, the Court determined that the video contained enough context to support a reasonable inference that Mr. Chatman was targeting a person: Mr. Chatman was shown taking aim and firing multiple shots, after which tires were heard screeching. The Court also rejected Mr. Chatman’s Juwa challenge, holding that the pending indictment was supported by enough indicia of reliability to be considered: a pretrial services agency report summarized a conversation between the pretrial services officer and the arresting officer, the Assistant United States Attorney confirmed he had spoken with the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the state case, and the PSR summarized the state indictment. And finally, the Court determined that the above-Guidelines sentence was adequately supported by the video and the fact of the state indictment.
Comments are closed.