John Marion LeBlanc, III, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) without a written plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 162 months of imprisonment, applying several enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1. LeBlanc appealed, arguing the court erred in applying enhancements for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, involving three to seven firearms, and involving a stolen firearm. The underlying facts involved an incident where officers responded to a call at a bar, observed LeBlanc and another individual moving frantically toward the floorboard of a vehicle, and subsequently found two firearms and cocaine in that vehicle.
The court applied the plain-error standard of review because LeBlanc failed to preserve his arguments in the district court. To succeed, he needed to show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Regarding the enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, the court relied on the presentence investigation report (PSR), which stated that officers found firearms and cocaine in a vehicle where LeBlanc was present and acting suspiciously. LeBlanc did not rebut these facts in the district court, so he could not demonstrate clear or obvious error. The court noted that this finding provided a sufficient basis for the enhancement, making it unnecessary to address his alternative argument regarding deadly conduct. For the enhancements involving multiple firearms and a stolen firearm, the court found that LeBlanc's challenges were grounded in the same constructive possession argument that had already failed. Additionally, LeBlanc conceded he possessed the firearm underlying his conviction, further undermining his claim of clear error.
The original 162-month sentence remains in effect. The decision reinforces that defendants who fail to object to sentencing enhancements at the district court level face a high bar on appeal, requiring them to prove clear or obvious error. It also confirms that factual findings in a presentence investigation report regarding constructive possession and drug trafficking involvement are sufficient to support firearm enhancements if not successfully rebutted below.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download