Background
Jonathan Revels was convicted of violating federal law prohibiting firearm possession by a prohibited person. He was involved in an altercation where he fatally shot a victim with a revolver. The indictment referenced two shotguns but not the revolver. During resentencing, the district court applied a sentencing guideline enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another offense, specifically voluntary manslaughter, without specifying which firearm triggered the enhancement.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the district court did not make the necessary findings to trigger the cross-reference provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The guideline requires that the firearm used in connection with another offense must also be cited in the offense of conviction. While the revolver was used in the homicide, it was not cited in the indictment. The shotguns were cited but the court did not find they were used in connection with the homicide. Because the district court failed to make these specific findings, the sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
We do not conclusively resolve whether that provision applies to Revels. Instead, mindful that we are a court of review, not of first view, we vacate and remand for resentencing because the district court’s factual findings were legally insufficient to support its application of the relevant provision.
United States v. Revels, 23-4688 (4th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
Defendants must have specific factual findings made by the district court to support the application of sentencing enhancements involving cross-references to other offenses.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download