In United States v. Parlor, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-30269 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court affirmed a sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
A divided panel held that the district court properly imposed three sentencing enhancements: a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) because the “offense involved” three to seven firearms that were “unlawfully possessed;” a two-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because one of the firearms had been reported stolen; and a four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing firearms “in connection with another felony offense, drug trafficking.
As to the enhancement for Parlor’s possession of five firearms, he argued "that the district court erred in imposing the multiple-firearms enhancement because the three firearms found during the searches of his house and storage unit were not sufficiently connected to his earlier possession of the two firearms for which he was charged. He points specifically to the eleven-week interval between the sale of two firearms during the controlled buy and the searches that yielded the three additional firearms."
The majority found the different incidents of possession were "relevant conduct" and "that the interval between the possession of the different firearms does not undermine their relatedness."
"[T]he eleven-week span here easily meets the standard for relevant conduct for multiple firearm possessions by a person not allowed to possess them."
The majority also rejected Parlor's argument that there was insufficient evidence showing that the handgun was stolen.
The majority further affirmed the imposition of "a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because Parlor possessed a firearm in connection with the felony offense of drug trafficking. This determination was based on the (uncharged) revolver that was found near the drugs and other drug paraphernalia in Parlor’s house and, additionally, on the CI’s statement about previously purchasing drugs from Parlor in exchange for a gun."
Finally, the majority concluded the district court did not plainly err in failing to use a heightened clear and convincing standard at sentencing.
