United States v. Stepp

Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
PUBLISH Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 26, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 23-2029

JUSTIN STEPP,

Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico
(D.C. No. 1:21-CR-01070-WJ-1)
_________________________________

Joel R. Meyers, Law Office of Joel R. Meyers LLC, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for
Defendant – Appellant.

Tiffany L. Walters, Assistant United States Attorney (Alexander M.M. Uballez, United
States Attorney, with her on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff – Appellee.
_________________________________

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________

McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________

On February 7, 2021, police officers and paramedics responded to a call regarding

an apparent gunshot victim. Justin Stepp was found with a wounded leg in the passenger

seat of a car driven by his girlfriend. Officers also found a small, holstered firearm in the
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 2

car’s open center console and ammunition under the passenger seat. Hours later, a search

of Mr. Stepp’s home uncovered multiple rounds of ammunition. Mr. Stepp was charged

with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; he proceeded

to trial and was convicted by a jury. At sentencing, pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines, the court calculated Mr. Stepp’s base offense level as 20, accounting for his

prior sentence for a crime of violence in 2002. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr. Stepp

to 72 months’ incarceration. Mr. Stepp appealed.

Mr. Stepp argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to find he

constructively possessed a firearm or ammunition, and that the court clearly erred by

including his 2002 conviction in its calculation of his base offense level. We conclude the

evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that Mr. Stepp had constructive possession of the ammunition found in

his home. Because possession of the ammunition is independently sufficient to sustain

Mr. Stepp’s conviction, we do not address the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his

possession of the firearm found in the car. We also conclude the district court did not

clearly err in finding Mr. Stepp’s 2002 conviction fell within the applicable fifteen-year

lookback period for calculating his base offense level. Thus, we affirm Mr. Stepp’s

conviction and sentence.

2
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 3

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History 1

On the evening of February 7, 2021, McKinley County Sheriff’s Deputy Dewayne

Holder responded to a call requesting assistance for an apparent gunshot victim. Deputy

Holder located the victim in a parked car. The car’s driver, Stefanie Ratliff, exited and

identified herself. Deputy Holder approached the car from the driver’s side and observed

a man, later identified as Mr. Stepp, reclined in the passenger seat with a bloody t-shirt

tied around his leg. Mr. Stepp was in obvious distress and requesting help. Deputy Holder

assured him an ambulance was on the way. As he looked into the vehicle, Deputy Holder

also noticed a small, holstered handgun lying in plain view in the center console, between

the driver and passenger seats. Deputy Holder seized the firearm, which was fully loaded

with five unspent .22 long-rifle cartridges. Deputy Holder noticed no indication that the

gun had been recently fired.

Cibola County Deputy Brian Gardner, Sergeant Thomas Archuleta, and former

Deputy Alan Roane also responded to the scene. A decision was made to seek a search

warrant for the vehicle. Ms. Ratliff requested the return of her large, red wallet from the

1
The following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at trial. Where there
was conflicting evidence, we view the facts based on the evidence most favorable to the
jury’s verdict. See United States v. Gregory, 54 F.4th 1183, 1192 (10th Cir. 2022), cert.
denied, No. 22-905, 2023 WL 2959422 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2023) (“In determining whether
the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, this court must
review the record de novo and ask only whether, taking the evidence—both direct and
circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom—in the
light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find Defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation marks omitted)).

3
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 4

vehicle. Officers returned the wallet, and the vehicle was sealed and towed to the Cibola

County Sheriff’s Office. A later search of the vehicle recovered two rounds of .22 caliber

ammunition from under the front passenger seat.

At approximately 2:00 a.m., after paramedics had transported Mr. Stepp to a

hospital, Deputy Holder drove Ms. Ratliff to the Quality Inn in Gallup, New Mexico.

Based on Ms. Ratliff’s account that Mr. Stepp had been shot in a random encounter near

Bluewater Lake, Deputies Roane and Gardner proceeded to investigate that area. There

they were joined by Cibola County Detective Anthony Kemp. Finding no evidence at the

lake, they proceeded to Mr. Stepp’s reported address, at his parents’ home. The deputies

informed Mr. Stepp’s parents that he had been shot and taken to a hospital near Gallup,

New Mexico. His parents informed the deputies that Mr. Stepp lived in the house across

the street. Deputies Gardner and Roane proceeded to Mr. Stepp’s house. They knocked,

but no one answered.

Having observed blood on the home’s front door jam and on the outside of a truck

parked in the driveway, the deputies sought a search warrant for the house. After the

warrant issued, officers searched the home. Their search recovered: men’s and women’s

clothing, on the bed; a suitcase of women’s clothing, in a living room; a personalized

mousepad with a photo of Mr. Stepp and Ms. Ratliff, near a computer monitor displaying

live video from home security cameras; 9mm and .223 ammunition, in upper cabinets on

either side of the computer monitor; one 300 Blackout ammunition round on the living

room floor, near men’s shoes; and another 300 Blackout ammunition round on the floor,

4
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 5

under the men’s shoes. Officers also noted what appeared to be blood at different spots

throughout the house.

The search also recovered evidence officers believed indicated someone had

entered the house while deputies were stationed outside, waiting for the warrant to issue.

This evidence included a hospital bracelet, showing a time of 12:30 a.m. and date of 2-8-

2021; a plastic bag containing personal items with a label from Gallup Indian Medical

Center, dated 2-8-2021; and a Wal-Mart receipt, dated 2-8-2021 at 7:18, reflecting the

purchase of rolled gauze wrap, pants, and socks. Officers also discovered the same red

wallet that had been returned to Ms. Ratliff hours earlier and a hotel room key from the

Quality Inn. They also found Mr. Stepp’s driver’s license in the home.

The same day the home was searched, Mr. Stepp and Ms. Ratliff were arrested on

state charges of evidence tampering, obstruction, and accessory to felon in possession.

These charges were later dismissed. Later that summer, Mr. Stepp was arrested on a

federal charge of felon in possession.

B. Procedural History

Trial

In July 2021, Mr. Stepp was indicted on one count of felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. Mr. Stepp

proceeded to trial in April 2022. At trial, the Government presented Deputy Gardner’s

lapel video of the search of Mr. Stepp’s home, photos from the search of the car and

Mr. Stepp’s home, as well as the firearm and ammunition recovered from the car and the

home. The jury also heard testimony from Deputy Holder, former Deputy Roane, Deputy

5
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 6

Gardner, Detective Kemp, and Special Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives.

At the close of evidence, Mr. Stepp moved for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Mr. Stepp argued that, based on the joint

occupancy of the car and home by Mr. Stepp and Ms. Ratliff, the Government had failed

to present any evidence to establish Mr. Stepp’s constructive possession of the firearm or

ammunition. Concluding the Government had presented a sufficient case to send to the

jury, the district court denied Mr. Stepp’s Rule 29 motion on this ground. The jury found

Mr. Stepp guilty on the sole felon-in-possession charge.

Sentencing

In July 2022, the United States Probation Office (“Probation”) released

Mr. Stepp’s initial Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), calculating his base offense

level as 24. Mr. Stepp filed numerous objections to the PSR, including, as relevant to this

appeal, two objections to Probation’s determination of his base offense level. Mr. Stepp’s

criminal history included two voluntary manslaughter convictions. For the first

manslaughter conviction, Mr. Stepp was sentenced, on July 12, 2002, to five years’

incarceration. Mr. Stepp committed the second manslaughter, for which he was sentenced

on March 28, 2006, to one year of incarceration, while he was incarcerated on his first

sentence. Mr. Stepp argued Probation miscalculated his base offense level because

neither of his two previous manslaughter convictions should be counted as crimes of

violence under Guidelines § 2K2.1, contending they fell outside the applicable lookback

periods.

6
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 7

Pursuant to the Guidelines, sentences of 13, or fewer, months count as crimes of

violence under § 2K2.1 only if they were imposed within the ten years preceding the

commission of the instant offense; sentences exceeding 13 months count only if they

resulted in the defendant being incarcerated within the fifteen years preceding the instant

offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 4A1.2(e)(1)–(2)

(Mar. 2022). Mr. Stepp contended his 2002 conviction fell outside the applicable

lookback period because his incarceration ended no later than December 27, 2005, more

than fifteen years before he committed the instant offense, on February 7, 2021.

Probation disputed Mr. Stepp’s calculation of his incarceration’s end date and maintained

that his 2002 conviction was properly included in determining his base offense level. But

Probation, the Government, and the court agreed that Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction should

not have been included as it fell outside the applicable ten-year lookback period, and the

court accordingly lowered his base offense level to 20. 2

On October 17, 2022, the district court held a hearing to address Mr. Stepp’s

objections. The Government called Denise Chavez from the New Mexico Corrections

Department. In her role for the division of Offender Management Services, Ms. Chavez

oversees the interpretation of judgments and sentences, application of good time credits

2
Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction was subject to a ten-year lookback period, because
the sentence imposed was less than 13 months. Mr. Stepp was sentenced for his second
manslaughter conviction on March 28, 2006, more than ten years before the instant
offense on February 7, 2021. Thus, applying the ten-year lookback period, Mr. Stepp’s
2006 conviction should not have been included in the calculation of his base offense level
under Guidelines § 2K2.1.

7
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 8

and laws, and release of inmates. According to Ms. Chavez, Mr. Stepp was released from

custody for his 2002 conviction on February 16, 2006, although he remained in

continuous custody due to his 2006 manslaughter conviction. After hearing argument

from counsel, the court took Mr. Stepp’s objection to the inclusion of his 2002 conviction

under advisement. In accordance with the court’s rulings on Mr. Stepp’s other objections,

Probation filed a revised PSR.

The court reconvened on January 11, 2023, when it ruled on Mr. Stepp’s

remaining objection and pronounced his sentence. In an oral ruling, followed by a written

order, the court found Mr. Stepp’s 2002 conviction fell within the applicable lookback

period for calculating his base offense level. Based on the New Mexico Corrections

Department’s documentation and Ms. Chavez’s testimony, the court found “it most

logical to consider . . . February 16, 2006, to be the final day of [Mr. Stepp’s] sentence on

the 2002 offense”—less than fifteen years prior to the instant offense on February 7,

2021. Appellant’s Br. Attach. B at 6–7. Accordingly, the court calculated Mr. Stepp’s

base offense level as 20, and his criminal history as Category VI, making his advisory

Guidelines sentencing range 70 to 87 months. Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr. Stepp

to 72 months’ incarceration. Mr. Stepp filed this timely appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Stepp challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his felon-in-

possession conviction and the district court’s calculation of his base offense level. We

consider each argument in turn.

8
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 9

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Standard of Review

We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction de novo to

“determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,

any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124, 1141 (10th Cir. 2013)

(quotation marks omitted). In conducting this review, “we consider all of the evidence,

direct and circumstantial, along with reasonable inferences, but we do not weigh the

evidence or consider the relative credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Griffith, 928

F.3d 855, 868–69 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, our review is limited

and deferential; “we may reverse only if no rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 869 (quotation marks

omitted).

Application

Mr. Stepp was indicted on one count of felon in possession of a firearm or

ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

(“It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to . . . possess in or

affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition[.]”). To convict Mr. Stepp under

§ 922(g)(1), the Government had to prove, among other things, that he knowingly

possessed either a firearm or ammunition. Cf. United States v. Veng Xiong, 1 F.4th 848,

852 (10th Cir. 2021) (“[T]o convict Defendant . . . , the Government had to prove . . .

9
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 10

Defendant possessed, actually or constructively, at least one of the firearms

identified[.]”). Thus, the jury could have convicted Mr. Stepp based on a finding that he

possessed either the firearm found in the car, or the ammunition found in his home, or

both. See Appellee’s Br. at 14; Oral Argument at 11:40–12:09 (Appellant, conceding

evidence sufficient to support finding either possession of the firearm found in the car or

the ammunition found in the home would sustain conviction). Because we conclude the

evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find Mr. Stepp

possessed the ammunition found in his home, we do not address the sufficiency of the

evidence regarding possession of the firearm found in the car.

Possession may be actual or constructive. See Veng Xiong, 1 F.4th at 852. Here,

both parties agree the Government lacked evidence that Mr. Stepp actually possessed the

ammunition. Mr. Stepp contests the sufficiency of the evidence to demonstrate his

constructive possession. “[C]onstructive possession exists when a person[,] not in actual

possession[,] knowingly has the power and intent at a given time to exercise dominion or

control over an object.” United States v. Little, 829 F.3d 1177, 1182 (10th Cir. 2016)

(citing Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S. 622, 626 (2015)); see Henderson, 575 U.S.

at 626 (“Constructive possession is established when a person, though lacking such

physical custody, still has the power and intent to exercise control over the object.”

(emphasis added)). When a defendant has exclusive control over the premises where an

object is found, “a jury may infer constructive possession.” Little, 829 F.3d at 1183. But

when a defendant jointly occupies the premises, the Government must “show a nexus

between the defendant and the firearm [or ammunition].” United States v. Benford, 875

10
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 11

F.3d 1007, 1015 (10th Cir. 2017). “That is, the [G]overnment must demonstrate the

defendant knew of, had access to, and intended to exercise dominion or control over the

contraband.” United States v. Johnson, 46 F.4th 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2022). This “may

be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Multiple individuals may have constructive possession of the contraband; exclusive

possession is not required. See United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th

Cir. 2000) (discussing joint occupancy and nonexclusive possession). But the defendant’s

“joint occupancy alone” cannot sustain an inference of constructive possession. United

States v. Hishaw, 235 F.3d 565, 571 (10th Cir. 2000).

Mr. Stepp does not dispute his joint occupancy of the home. But he argues no

evidence was presented at trial to demonstrate the requisite nexus between himself and

the ammunition. Specifically, Mr. Stepp contends there was no evidence linking him to

the ammunition and nothing to support a finding that he “had knowledge of” or “intended

to exercise control over” the ammunition. 3 Appellant’s Br. at 13.

3
Mr. Stepp also implies that police falsified or manipulated evidence, as portrayed
in photo exhibits 9, 30, 32, 41, and 51, to create the appearance of a greater connection
between Mr. Stepp and the ammunition than actually existed. But Mr. Stepp made no
objection to the introduction of these exhibits at trial, and does not do so on appeal.
Therefore, any such argument is forfeited. See United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192,
1196 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting that arguments not raised before the district court are
forfeited and will be considered only to the extent a party argues plain error on appeal).
Additionally, absent any substantive support developed in the record, we will not accept
Mr. Stepp’s speculation that officers contrived the evidence recovered from their search
of his home. Cf. United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1532–33 (10th Cir. 1989)
(“Absent some showing by the defendant that the evidence has been tampered with, it
will not be presumed that the investigators who had custody of it would do so.”
(quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

11
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 12

The Government responds that, treating the home as jointly occupied, 4 sufficient

evidence was presented at trial for a rational trier of fact to find the required nexus

between Mr. Stepp and the ammunition. The Government argues Mr. Stepp’s knowledge,

access, and intent to control the ammunition may be inferred from its location: organized

in cabinets in an actively used home office and scattered on the living room floor

intermixed with Mr. Stepp’s personal belongings. Viewed in the light most favorable to

the verdict, the Government contends this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror

to find Mr. Stepp constructively possessed the ammunition found in his home. We agree.

In considering joint occupancy, presence alone does not suffice to show

constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. See United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d

1136, 1146 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[J]oint occupancy of a bedroom, without more, is

insufficient to support a conviction of constructive possession of a gun found in a

bedroom.”). Thus, we look to what other evidence supports an inference that Mr. Stepp

had access to, knew of, and intended to exercise dominion or control over the

ammunition found in his home. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 763 F. App’x 745,

749 (10th Cir. 2019) (concluding the Government had met its burden of demonstrating

4
The Government’s brief contends the evidence presented at trial was ambiguous
regarding whether Ms. Ratliff lived at the home and a jury could reasonably conclude
Mr. Stepp was the sole occupant. This conclusion alone could suffice to show
Mr. Stepp’s constructive possession of the ammunition. See United States v. Little, 829
F.3d 1177, 1183 (10th Cir. 2016) (concluding that a jury may infer constructive
possession from a defendant’s exclusive occupancy and control of the premises).
However, at oral argument, the Government conceded this matter is properly viewed as a
joint occupancy case. Oral Argument at 22:05–22:35 (Government conceding home was
jointly occupied). Thus, we consider it as such.

12
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 13

constructive possession where evidence showed the firearm was found in a toolbox which

defendant had been actively using to work on a go-cart); 5 United States v. Martinez, 749

F. App’x 698, 704–05 (10th Cir. 2018) (concluding evidence of constructive possession

was sufficient where (1) firearm was found in defendant’s bedroom where she kept her

personal effects and in a safe where informant testified defendant concealed drugs,

defendant was a “high-level drug dealer”, and firearm was a “tactical type” used for self-

defense; and (2) ammunition was found in plain view on top of defendant’s bed); 6 United

States v. Mendez, 514 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by

5
In United States v. Campbell, we reviewed the evidence supporting constructive
possession in the context of appellant’s argument that omission of the intent requirement
in jury instructions regarding constructive possession constituted plain error. 763 F.
App’x 745 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (citing Henderson v. United States, 575 U.S.
622 (2015)). Under plain error review, we look to the evidence to determine whether, but
for the error, there is a “reasonable probability that . . . the result of the proceeding would
have been different.” United States v. Veng Xiong, 1 F.4th 848, 853 (10th Cir. 2021)
(citing Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016)). Here, we may
reverse Mr. Stepp’s conviction “only if no rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Griffith, 928
F.3d 855, 869 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). Demonstrating a “reasonable
probability” of acquittal is a distinct and less demanding standard than demonstrating that
“no rational trier of fact” could have convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g.,
United States v. Samora, 954 F.3d 1286, 1290–96 (10th Cir. 2020) (finding evidence was
sufficient to sustain conviction but reversing and remanding because the court plainly
erred by omitting the intent requirement in jury instructions); United States v. Benford,
875 F.3d 1007, 1018, 1021 (10th Cir. 2017) (reversing based on plainly erroneous jury
instructions but commenting, in dicta, that “a reasonable jury could conclude from th[e]
evidence that [the defendant] intended to exercise control” of the firearms found in his
home).
6
Although Campbell, 763 F. App’x 745, and United States v. Martinez, 749 F.
App’x 698 (10th Cir. 2018), are unpublished and therefore not binding, they may be cited
for their persuasive value. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (“Unpublished decisions are not
precedential but may be cited for their persuasive value.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.

13
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 14

Henderson, 575 U.S. 622 (concluding sufficient evidence demonstrated defendant “had

knowledge of and access to the firearms, as well as the ability and intention to control

them” where shotgun was found sitting in the open in another bedroom, accessible to

anyone in the house, defendant admitted to knowing about it, and ammunition was found

throughout the house).

Here, the ammunition found in Mr. Stepp’s home was located in cabinets in a

home office space, along with other personal effects, and on the floor under and around

men’s shoes and other items. Physical evidence demonstrated Mr. Stepp actively used the

home and the office space. The office included a monitor, displaying live video from

home security cameras, and a custom mouse pad featuring a picture of Mr. Stepp and

Ms. Ratliff. And, in addition to the men’s clothing and shoes, several of Mr. Stepp’s

personal belongings were found in the home including his driver’s license; a hospital

admission bracelet, dated 2-8-2021 at 12:30 a.m.; and a bag of items with a label from

Gallup Indian medical center, also dated 2-8-2021. The hospital bracelet and bag of items

may reasonably be inferred to belong to Mr. Stepp, who was transported to a Gallup

hospital in the early hours of February 8. Viewed in the light most favorable to the

Government, this evidence supports a rational inference that Mr. Stepp actively used the

home, including the office area, and had in fact reentered the home after his discharge

from the hospital and before officers conducted their search.

The ammunition’s presence in areas Mr. Stepp actively used, alongside his

personal belongings, supports a rational inference that he had access to, knowledge of,

and an intent to control the ammunition. See Campbell, 763 F. App’x at 749 (firearm

14
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 15

found in toolbox defendant actively used); Martinez, 749 F. App’x at 705 (ammunition

found in plain view on top of defendant’s bed); Mendez, 514 F.3d at 1042 (firearm found

in plain view, accessible to anyone in the house, and ammunition found throughout the

house); cf. United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d 1136, 1145–46 (10th Cir. 1997) (no

evidence defendant used closet where firearm was found); United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d

545, 550 (10th Cir. 1994) (no evidence defendant knew of firearms roommate had

concealed). Although the evidence may also support other inferences, evidence sufficient

to support the jury’s verdict need not exclude all other hypotheticals or possibilities. See

United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989, 993 (10th Cir. 2006). It need only demonstrate that

a rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements necessary to

convict. Id. Thus, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Stepp’s

conviction.

B. Base Offense Level Calculation

Standard of Review

Application of the Guidelines presents mixed questions of fact and law. United

States v. Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1469 (10th Cir. 1990). We review “legal questions

regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and [the] district court’s

15
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 16

factual findings for clear error.” 7 United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d 1139, 1153 (10th Cir.

2021) (quotation marks and ellipses omitted). Here, Mr. Stepp challenges only the district

court’s factual finding that he completed his term of incarceration for his 2002 conviction

on February 16, 2006, contending that instead his term of incarceration ended on

December 27, 2005. Such factual findings are clearly erroneous “only if they are without

factual support in the record” or if, “considering all the evidence, [we are] left with a

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Lozano, 921

F.3d 942, 946 (10th Cir. 2019). “In general, factual findings at sentencing must be

supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Stein, 985 F.3d 1254,

1266 (10th Cir. 2021).

Legal Background

The base offense level for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is calculated pursuant

to Guidelines § 2K2.1, which states in relevant part:

(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the Greatest): . . .

(4) 20, if . . . (A) the defendant committed any part of the instant offense
subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of . . . a crime of
violence . . .

7
Ultimately, “[f]ailure to calculate the correct Guidelines range constitutes
procedural error,” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. -- , 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904
(2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 537
(2013)), and is “harmless and not reversible if the record viewed as a whole clearly
indicates the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it not relied on the
procedural miscue(s),” United States v. Lee, 71 F.4th 1217, 1221 (10th Cir. 2023)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Because we conclude the district court did not clearly
err in its factual findings related to calculating Mr. Stepp’s Guidelines range, we do not
consider the harmlessness of any error.

16
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 17

(6) 14, if the defendant (A) was a prohibited person at the time the
defendant committed the instant offense[.]

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. However, crimes of violence will count for purposes of

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) only if they receive criminal history points under Guidelines

§ 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c). Id. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.10). A “sentence of imprisonment

exceeding one year and one month” will receive criminal history points only if it “was

imposed within fifteen years” of the commission of the instant offense or “resulted in the

defendant being incarcerated during any part of such fifteen-year period.” Id.

§ 4A1.2(e)(1); see also id. § 4A1.1, comment. (n.1).

Mr. Stepp concedes that he was a prohibited person at the time of the instant

offense, for purposes of Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(6)(A); that his 2002 conviction qualifies

as a crime of violence; and that the applicable lookback period for his 2002 conviction

ends February 7, 2006—fifteen years prior to the date of the instant offense. See

Appellant’s Br. at 18–19. However, he argues his 2002 conviction does not fall within the

fifteen-year lookback period and thus does not count for purposes of Guidelines

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Therefore, Mr. Stepp contends his base offense level should be 14, not

20.

Ordinarily, determining whether a defendant was serving a term of incarceration

within the fifteen years before his commission of the instant offense will be a simple

matter of looking to his release date. However, because Mr. Stepp committed the

subsequent offense while in custody, he remained in the continuous custody of the state

of New Mexico between the end of his incarceration for his 2002 conviction and the

17
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 18

beginning of his sentence for his 2006 conviction. Under New Mexico law, “[w]henever

an inmate in a penal institution of this state . . . is sentenced for committing any felony

while he is an inmate, the sentence imposed shall be consecutive to the sentence being

served[.]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18-21(A) (1978). While a person held in presentence

confinement is “given credit for th[at] period . . . against any sentence finally imposed for

th[e] offense,” id. § 31-20-12, “a defendant is not entitled to double credit when

sentenced consecutively on multiple charges or in multiple cases,” State v. Cerda, 519

P.3d 87, 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022), cert. denied (Sept. 23, 2022).

Taken together, these rules mean that, after his period of incarceration for his 2002

conviction ended, Mr. Stepp remained in custody on presentence confinement for his

2006 conviction. That period of presentence confinement was then credited against

Mr. Stepp’s sentence for his 2006 conviction. While both parties agree Mr. Stepp’s

sentence for his 2002 conviction began on July 12, 2002; his sentence for his 2006

conviction began on March 28, 2006; and he was released from New Mexico’s custody

on December 18, 2006, they dispute when—between July 12, 2002, and March 28,

2006—Mr. Stepp’s incarceration for his 2002 conviction ended and his presentence

confinement on his 2006 conviction began.

Application

The district court’s finding, that Mr. Stepp’s term of incarceration for his 2002

sentence ended on February 16, 2006, was well supported by the record and is therefore,

not clearly erroneous. While there are apparent errors in the New Mexico Corrections

Department’s documents regarding Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction, the documents from his

18
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 19

2002 conviction—the conviction at issue in the calculation of his base offense level—

clearly indicate his sentence of confinement for that offense ended on February 16, 2006.

See ROA Vol. I at 92 (listing discharge date of February 16, 2006). Despite the errors in

the documents related to Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction, this date remains constant. See id.

at 94 (starting presentence confinement credit on February 17, 2006); id. at 97 (starting

presentence confinement credit on February 17, 2006).

Mr. Stepp contends his incarceration for his 2002 conviction ended on December

27, 2005—more than fifteen years before his commission of the instant offense on

February 7, 2021. For support, Mr. Stepp looks to the initial judgment and Good Time

Sheet for his 2006 manslaughter conviction, committed while he was incarcerated for his

2002 conviction. Mr. Stepp was sentenced for his 2006 conviction on March 28, 2006.

His initial judgment states that he “shall be given credit for ninety [days] for time served

starting on February 17, 2006[.]” ROA Vol I at 94. This was clearly an error, as there are

not ninety days between February 17 and March 28. This error was reiterated by

Mr. Stepp’s Good Time Sheet for his 2006 conviction, giving Mr. Stepp three months of

presentence credit. Mr. Stepp attributes this error to the date he began receiving

presentence credit, rather than the amount of presentence credit due, and accordingly

subtracts ninety days from the date of sentencing, March 28, 2006, and contends he

began receiving presentence confinement credit on December 28, 2005. Thus, Mr. Stepp

argues his incarceration for his 2002 conviction ended on December 27, 2005.

But, as the Government notes, the judgment for Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction was

later amended, removing the reference to ninety days’ presentence credit and instead

19
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 20

providing that Mr. Stepp “shall be given credit for time served starting on February 17,

2006 . . . to the time of filing the judgment in this matter[.]” ROA Vol. I at 97. Although

there are errors in the initial and amended judgments for Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction, 8

the date of February 17, 2006, is consistently referenced as the date from which his

presentence confinement credit began to accrue. More to the point, the judgment and

Good Time Sheet for Mr. Stepp’s 2002 conviction show Mr. Stepp was sentenced to five

years’ incarceration on July 12, 2002, and had a final discharge date of February 16,

2006, after accounting for presentence confinement and good time credit. As the

Government argues, the date of February 16, 2006, is consistent across the New Mexico

Corrections Department’s documents, and is supported by Ms. Chavez’s testimony, as the

date when Mr. Stepp finished serving his custody sentence for his 2002 conviction. The

Government maintains the district court did not clearly err by crediting this evidence and

8
When it comes to the calculation of presentence confinement credit for
Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction, the New Mexico Corrections Department’s documentation
presents several errors: (1) the initial judgment lists the sentencing date as August 10,
2006, not March 28, 2006; (2) the initial judgment calculates ninety days’ presentence
confinement from February 17, 2006, to the date of sentencing; (3) the amended
judgment lists the sentencing date as August 18, 2006, not March 28, 2006; (4) the Good
Time Sheet attributes three months’ presentence confinement credit prior to Mr. Stepp’s
sentencing date of March 28, 2006; and (5) the Good Time Sheet attributes an additional
three months and three days’ presentence confinement credit based on the erroneous
sentencing date from the amended judgment. According to Ms. Chavez, the errors in
Mr. Stepp’s Good Time Sheet for his 2006 conviction resulted in Mr. Stepp being “given
too much credit” such that “he was probably released a little bit early.” Supp. ROA Vol. I
at 51–52. The district court noted these errors and determined “not [to] compound the
error by continuing to rely on the mistake when making its timekeeping determination[].”
ROA Vol. I at 108.

20
Appellate Case: 23-2029 Document: 010110973955 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 21

refusing to rely on the erroneous calculation of ninety days’ presentence credit for

Mr. Stepp’s 2006 conviction. We agree.

The district court adhered to the date consistent across the Good Time Sheet for

Mr. Stepp’s 2002 conviction, the initial judgment for his 2006 conviction, and the

amended judgment for his 2006 conviction and found Mr. Stepp’s term of incarceration

for his 2002 conviction ended February 16, 2006—less than fifteen years before the

commission of the instant offense on February 7, 2021. While Mr. Stepp points to

information in the New Mexico Corrections Department’s documentation that suggests

his term of confinement for his 2002 conviction ended earlier, this contrary information

does not lead us to “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Lozano, 921 F.3d at 946. There was sufficient foundation in the record for the district

court to reasonably find that, more likely than not, Mr. Stepp’s term of confinement for

his 2002 conviction ended on February 16, 2006. Thus, we conclude the district court’s

factual finding pertaining to its calculation of Mr. Stepp’s base offense level was not

clearly erroneous.

III. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM Mr. Stepp’s conviction and sentence.

21