Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-2-2004
USA v. Baskerville
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4321
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Baskerville" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 625.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/625
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 03-4321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONSHEEK BASKERVILLE
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 03-cr-00086)
District Judge: Hon. Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 25, 2004
BEFORE: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and SCHWARZER,* District Judge
(Filed: June 2, 2004)
* Hon. William W. Schwarzer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
California, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Ronsheek Baskerville pled guilty to uttering and possessing counterfeit
United States currency and to possessing a firearm following a felony conviction. His
presentence report recommended a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in
connection with another felony offense – i.e., the counterfeiting offense. Baskerville
objected to this enhancement and testified at the sentencing hearing that he always carried
a gun for personal protection and that, while he knew he was carrying a loaded firearam
when he went to pick up the counterfeit notes, he was not upset with anyone and did not
carry it to threaten anyone or to protect the notes.
After the sentencing hearing, the District Court determined that the four-level
enhancement was appropriate. It found that the “mere fact that the defendant typically or
frequently carried a gun [did] not mandate a finding that this gun was of no use or of no
moment in the commission of the counterfeiting offense.” App. at 75. The court found
that “there [was] enough circumstantial evidence [in this case], particularly in light of his
statements that he knew he had a gun on his possession, and in light of the amount of the
counterfeiting money involved in the offense” to support the finding that the firearm was
2
used and possessed in relation to another felony offense, namely counterfeiting. App. at
75-76. Baskerville was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment on the counterfeiting
count and 120 months on the felony possession count, to be served concurrently. App. at
79-80.
As we held in United States v. Loney, 219 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir. 2000):
[W]hen a defendant has a loaded gun on his person while caught in the
midst of a crime that involves in-person transactions, whether involving
drugs or not, a district judge can reasonably infer that there is a relationship
between the gun and the offense and hence § 2K2.1(b)(5) is satisfied.
While Loney speaks only of a permissible inference, the District Court, based on
all of the circumstantial evidence, chose to draw that inference. It did not err in doing so.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3