Background
The defendant appealed his sentence of one hundred twenty-one months imprisonment for possession of ammunition as a felon. He argued the district court clearly erred in finding he committed attempted first-degree murder because the court failed to find specific intent to kill and that premeditation alone could not support the cross-reference provision.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed factual findings for clear error and interpreted the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. The district court’s statement that premeditated intent is to kill in cold blood after thinking over the matter was sufficient to show consideration of specific intent. Evidence showed the defendant waited for the victim and shot at the victim multiple times before repositioning for better shots.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that district courts do not need to use the exact phrase specific intent to kill if their findings on premeditation and the evidence presented clearly support that conclusion.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download