United States v. Raymont Bentley ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 22-1834
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RAYMONT BENTLEY,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2-13-cr-00202-001)
District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on January 25, 2023
Before: HARDIMAN, KRAUSE, and MATEY, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 1, 2023)
__________
OPINION*
__________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
After pleading to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), see Presentence Rep. ¶ 1; Appx. at 6, Raymont Bentley was
sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment. SAppx. at 79. That sentence was based in part
on a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for violating § 922(g)(1) in
connection with another felony offense, namely, aggravated assault, for discharging a
weapon in the direction of an occupied car. SAppx. at 65-66; Opening Br. at 6-7.
Bentley now appeals, claiming the District Court clearly erred in applying this
enhancement. Discerning no error, we will affirm.
I. DISCUSSION1
Bentley challenges the application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) on the ground that
the video footage on which the District Court relied at sentencing “did not show that a
firearm was discharged in the direction of any individual or vehicle[,]” and “[a]t best, the
video shows what could suffice as evidence of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, a
misdemeanor offense.” Opening Br. at 6. Though the District Court agreed with Bentley
that “there are portions of the video that are grainy,” it ultimately concluded the video
was sufficient to impose the enhancement because “many portions . . . are much clearer
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We “review factual findings relevant to the Guidelines for clear
error and . . . exercise plenary review over a district court’s interpretation of the
Guidelines.” United States v. Bell, 947 F.3d 49, 54 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “A
finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” United States v. Ali, 508 F.3d 136, 144 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
2
than we would expect.” SAppx. at 65.
Having reviewed the video ourselves, we concur with the District Court. The
quality of the footage fluctuates, but in reviewing an enhancement for clear error, we
require only that the District Court’s factual finding not be “completely devoid of
minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility.” Ramsay v. Nat’l Bd.
of Med. Examiners, 968 F.3d 251, 261 (3d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United
States v. Harris, 751 F.3d 123, 128 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding that although video did not
have audio, it was sufficient to establish factual predicate for sentencing enhancement
under clear error standard). And here the video is sufficiently clear to make out Bentley
discharging a firearm in the same direction as an SUV that was driving away, which
constituted an aggravated assault under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1) and (4).
We note, too, that even if the video established only Recklessly Endangering
Another Person as Bentley suggests it may have, the four-level enhancement would
nonetheless apply. That is because, despite its label as a misdemeanor, reckless
endangerment carries a sentence of not more than two years, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1104(2),
and thus still qualifies as a felony under the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(b) cmt. n.14(C).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
3