Submitted: January 15, 2016
from United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis
WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.
convicted Warnell Reid of possession of a firearm as a
previously convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). The district court determined that Reid was
subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months'
imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and
sentenced him to 188 months in prison. Reid appealed, and
this court vacated the sentence and remanded for
resentencing, because § 924(e) was inapplicable to Reid.
United States v. Reid, 769 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir.
2014). On remand, the district court [*] sentenced Reid to 96
months' imprisonment, a sentence at the top of the
revised advisory guideline range. Reid appeals and raises
several issues relating to his sentence. We affirm.
prosecution arose from events that transpired when law
enforcement officers executed an arrest warrant for
Earnestine Graham, Reid's girlfriend, at her residence in
November 2011. At the time, Reid was on parole for three
felonies in Missouri: robbery, armed criminal action, and
possession of a controlled substance in a correctional
arresting Graham without incident, officers searched the
home. In a first-floor bedroom, officers discovered a
semiautomatic SKS assault rifle with a loaded 30-round
magazine attached to the weapon, a loaded twelve-gauge
shotgun, and a disassembled .44 caliber revolver. Officers
also found in the bedroom several of Reid's possessions,
including a cell phone, wallet and identification, articles
of clothing, a to-do list Reid had written the day before,
and two folders containing documents in Reid's name.
told the officers that Reid lived at the residence and that
the firearms belonged to him. As officers were placing the
weapons in their vehicle, Reid arrived at the residence and
parked his car nearby. Officers arrested Reid and recovered
keys in his possession that opened the front door of the
residence and a padlock in the home's kitchen.
jury charged Reid with unlawful possession of a firearm as a
previously convicted felon, and the case proceeded to trial.
There was no dispute that Reid was a convicted felon, but
Reid denied that he possessed a firearm. The firearms and
other evidence seized at the home were received in evidence.
Graham testified that Reid had purchased the assault rifle
and shotgun. She also said that after Reid began living at
the residence in September 2011, he brought the firearms into
the home and kept them in a first-floor bedroom closet with a
combination lock. She explained that Reid removed the
firearms from the closet the day before the search while he
was under the influence of narcotics.
testified at trial and denied living at Graham's
residence. He testified that he left his papers and the to-do
list at the residence on the day before the search, and he
claimed that nearly all of the clothing seized belonged to
Graham. Reid said he "had nothing to do" with the
firearms in the house. The jury found Reid guilty, and a
sentencing and appeal followed.
remand from the first appeal, the district court held a
resentencing hearing. The court received evidence, determined
an advisory guideline range of 77 to 96 months'
imprisonment, and imposed a sentence of 96 months, to be
served consecutive to a sentence that Reid was serving in
Missouri. Reid appeals the sentence, raising claims of
procedural error and substantive unreasonableness. We review
the district court's interpretation of the sentencing
guidelines de novo and its factual findings for
clear error. United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d
913, 940 (8th Cir. 2014).
argues that the district court erred in allowing the
government on remand to add evidence to the existing record.
Our prior opinion, however, did not address the issues raised
on remand or limit the scope of the proceedings. The district
court was thus permitted to consider any relevant evidence
that it could have received at Reid's first sentencing
hearing. United States v. Kendall, 475 F.3d 961, 964
(8th Cir. 2007).
first claim of procedural error is that the district court
incorrectly determined that his base offense level was 22.
Under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3), a defendant convicted for
unlawful possession of a firearm is assessed a base offense
level of 22 when (1) "the offense involved a . . .
semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large
capacity magazine, " and (2) "the defendant
committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to
sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of
violence or a controlled substance ...