United States v. Kentrell Ezenwere ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 18-20201      Document: 00514742747         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/30/2018
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 18-20201                         FILED
    November 30, 2018
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    KENTRELL EZENWERE,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:17-CR-581-1
    Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Kentrell Ezenwere appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a
    convicted felon.      He admitted that the firearm had been stolen from a
    pawnshop the previous day. According to Ezenwere, the district court clearly
    erred at sentencing by finding that he was involved in the pawnshop
    burglary — a finding that supported the court’s determination that the
    burglary was relevant conduct for purposes of a six-level enhancement for
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 18-20201     Document: 00514742747      Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/30/2018
    No. 18-20201
    possessing 29 firearms under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) and its determination
    that he committed the instant felon-in-possession offense in connection with
    another felony offense for purposes of a four-level enhancement under §
    2K2.1(b)(6)(B).   Ezenwere contends that the court based the finding on
    intuition, speculation, and coincidence, which are insufficient to meet the
    preponderance of the evidence standard.
    “We review the district court’s findings of fact at sentencing for clear
    error.” United States v. Burns, 
    526 F.3d 852
    , 859 (5th Cir. 2008). “A factual
    finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a
    whole. United States v. Williams, 
    520 F.3d 414
    , 422 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation
    omitted).
    The district court’s finding that Ezenwere was involved in the burglary
    rested on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including his arrest the next
    day while driving a car that matched the one seen on surveillance footage
    driving away from the pawnshop right after the burglary; the presence of a
    firearm stolen during the burglary on the floorboard in front of his seat; the
    presence in the trunk of the tools necessary to commit the burglary, along with
    two red bags matching the bags used to remove the firearms from the
    pawnshop; a photograph of the same car posted to Ezenwere’s social media
    account several days before the burglary; videos posted to social media within
    12 hours of the burglary showing Ezenwere holding firearms that matched the
    description of firearms stolen during the burglary; and instruments of the
    burglary found in the trunk that matched the instruments found on the roof of
    the pawnshop where the burglar broke in.
    Accordingly, the district court’s finding that Ezenwere was involved was
    not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Robinson, 
    654 F.3d 558
    , 562 (5th
    2
    Case: 18-20201    Document: 00514742747     Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/30/2018
    No. 18-20201
    Cir. 2011); 
    Burns, 526 F.3d at 859
    ; 
    Williams, 520 F.3d at 422
    , and he has shown
    no error in the imposition of the § 2K2.1 enhancements.
    Ezenwere also objects to the district court’s decision to make the service
    of his federal sentence begin only after the completion of a sentence imposed
    in a particular state criminal proceeding. The basis for the objection is that
    the district court included this language in the sentence: “This term is to run
    consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed in Harris County Case No.
    2141454.” It is clear now that the objection has been mooted because the
    referenced state-court case has been dismissed. It is impossible to grant the
    relief Ezenwere seeks because the premise for it has been eliminated. See
    United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 
    823 F.3d 337
    , 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART, and the
    appeal is DISMISSED IN PART AS MOOT.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-20201

Filed Date: 11/30/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021