United States v. Donavan Baptiste , 480 F. App'x 243 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONAVAN A. BAPTISTE, a/k/a Donovan A. Baptiste,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:11-cr-00347-DCN-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2012 Decided: May 15, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher W. Adams, CHRISTOPHER W. ADAMS LAW OFFICE,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donavan A. Baptiste pleaded guilty, without a plea
agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to seventy-eight months’
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Baptiste
appeals the district court’s application of a four offense level
enhancement for possession of a firearm “in connection with
another felony offense” in calculating his advisory Guidelines
sentencing range. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). We first inspect for procedural reasonableness by
ensuring that the district court committed no significant
procedural errors such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th
Cir. 2010). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The Guidelines require the addition of four offense
levels if a defendant used or possessed a firearm “in connection
with another felony offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010). “The government bears the burden of
proving the facts necessary to establish the applicability of
2
this enhancement by the preponderance of the evidence, and we
review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error,
giving due deference to the district court’s application of the
Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Garnett, 243 F.3d
824, 828 (4th Cir. 2001). If the defendant presents evidence
arguably supporting self-defense or another valid defense, “the
government ha[s] to negate that defense by a preponderance of
the evidence for the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement to apply.”
United States v. Raglin, 500 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 2007). In
assessing a district court’s application of the Guidelines, this
court reviews legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010).
Here, Baptiste not only illegally possessed a firearm,
but also pointed it at an occupied vehicle and shot it nine
times. Baptiste claims that he only did so in self-defense and
thus did not possess the firearm in connection with another
felony offense. Baptiste does not challenge the district
court’s finding that, absent self-defense, he possessed the
firearm in connection with the South Carolina felonies of
pointing and presenting a firearm and aggravated assault.
To be eligible for self-defense in South Carolina,
“the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the
difficulty.” State v. Slater, 644 S.E.2d 50, 52 (S.C. 2007).
Self-defense is not available to one who engages in mutual
3
combat. State v. Graham, 196 S.E.2d 495, 495 (S.C. 1973);
State v. Porter, 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (S.C. 1977). Relying on
the facts contained in Baptiste’s written statements to law
enforcement officers, we find support for the Government’s
contention that Baptiste was not without fault in bringing on
the situation that led to his use of the firearm. In response
to his feeling that “something was gonna happen,” Baptiste armed
himself and leaned against his friend’s car rather than seeking
to avoid a confrontation. In doing so, Baptiste placed himself
in a position where an encounter could be expected. See Slater,
644 S.E.2d at 52; Graham, 196 S.E.2d at 495-96; Porter, 239
S.E.2d at 643. Thus, the district court did not err in finding
by a preponderance of the evidence that Baptiste possessed the
firearm in connection with another felony offense.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4