United States v. Nakhonkgeoh Chanthabandith, 89 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
United States v. Nakhonkgeoh Chanthabandith, 89 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
60 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Hardin (ca6, 2008-08-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Hardin
6th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Copeland, 89 F.3d 836 (table), 1996 WL 306556 , 1996 U.S.App.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Hardin
6th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Copeland, 89 F.3d 836 (table), 1996 WL 306556 , 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17177 (6th Cir. June 6, 1996); New York v. Jefferson, 43 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Akridge
6th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Un ited States v. M illis, 89 F.3d 836 , 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS (6th Cir. June 19, 1996) (rejecting defendant’s argume nts for exclusion, reasoning that the fact that the co-defendant witness “initiated his cooperation with authorities on his own initiative, 6 several days after the arrest” dem onstrated an indep endent willingness to This list of factors is neither exclusive nor exhaustive, and clearly testify that dissipated the taint of the original stop). not all factors may be relevant to eve ry situation.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Stephen D. Akridge (2×)
6th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Millis, 89 F.3d 836 , 1996 U.S.App.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Gray
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gray, No. 95-5521, 1996 WL 338657 , 89 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. June 17, 1996) (unpublished per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Burnett
E.D. Tenn. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Brazier, 89 F.3d 836 (Table), No. 96-5488, 1996 WL 330847 (6th Cir. June 13, 1996); United States v. Marquina, 89 F.3d 836 (Table), No. 96-5633, 1996 WL 316528 (6th Cir. June 11, 1996); United States v. Hill, 47 F.3d 1171 (Table), No. 95-3051, 1995 WL 19367 (6th Cir. Jan.18, 1995); United States v. Hillman, 7 F.3d 235 (Table), No. 93-6044, 1993 WL 384911 (6th Cir. Sept.29, 1993); United States v. Evans, 993 F.2d 1548 (Table), No. 93-3257, 1993 WL 147563 (6th Cir. May 6, 1993); United States v. Thompson, 951 F.2d 351 (Table), No. 91-1353, 91-2196, 1991 WL 256556 (6th Cir. D…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Millis v. Pullen
C.D. Ill. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ky.); see also United States v. Millis, 89 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Nakhonkgeoh Chanthabandith
95-6298.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jun 19, 1996.
89 F.3d 836
Unpublished

89 F.3d 836

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Nakhonkgeoh CHANTHABANDITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-6298.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 19, 1996.

Before: JONES, BOGGS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Defendant, Nakhonkgeoh Chanthabandith, appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for conspiring to receive, conceal, store, and dispose of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Chanthabandith argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5). The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

Chanthabandith pleaded guilty to conspiring to receive, conceal, store, and dispose of firearms pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. A probation officer interviewed Chanthabandith and prepared a presentence investigation report in which the officer recommended that Chanthabandith's offense level be enhanced four levels pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5). Chanthabandith objected to this proposed enhancement. The district court conducted a sentencing hearing, concluded that Chanthabandith's offense level should be increased four levels pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(5), and sentenced Chanthabandith to thirty months in prison and three years of supervised release. Chanthabandith appeals that judgment.

3

This court reviews a district court's factual findings underlying its application of the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error, United States v. Sivils, 960 F.2d 587, 596 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 843 (1992), but reviews de novo its application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. The government bears the burden of proving a sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Medina, 992 F.2d 573, 592 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1049 (1994).

4

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err in increasing Chanthabandith's offense level pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5). Section 2K2.1(b)(5) provides that:

5

If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense, increase by 4 levels.

6

The government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Chanthabandith clearly knew or had reason to believe that the weapons in his possession would be used or possessed in connection with another felony.

7

The government proved that 65 guns were stolen from the home of a gun collector by members of the Local Killer Boys gang in an organized gang endeavor undertaken for the purpose of putting weapons in the hands of gang members. Chanthabandith was either a member of that gang or a very close associate of the gang and was tattooed with the gang's identifying "friendship star." Chanthabandith admitted knowing that the guns were stolen. Chanthabandith was given sole possession of 15 of the guns. When the leader of the gang ordered Chanthabandith to return the guns, Chanthabandith obeyed. Thus, the government showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Chanthabandith had reason to believe that the weapons would be used by members of the Local Killer Boys gang.

8

Chanthabandith also had reason to believe that the Local Killer Boys gang would use the weapons to commit felonies. The leader of the gang admitted that the Local Killer Boys gang was involved in three or four shootings and declared that any member of the gang would kill if necessary. Thus, when Chanthabandith returned the guns to the leader of the admittedly violent criminal gang (the gang to which he also probably belonged), he had reason to believe that the guns would be used in connection with other felony offenses.

9

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed.