Background
In March 2024, two members of the Bleedas gang—David Catherine and Jerikco Thomas—were seated in a car in a Walmart parking lot in Monroe, Louisiana when two masked gunmen approached and opened fire. The victims were shot multiple times, transferred to trauma facilities, hospitalized for several days, and one required surgery. Police recovered twenty-seven .40 caliber shell casings from the scene.
Through investigation—including ballistics analysis, phone geolocation data, surveillance footage, text messages, and informant tips—police identified the shooters as Kilarrious Owens and Tristan Barber, members of the rival YNN gang. Barber’s phone was placed near the scene at the time of the shooting, and a Glock 22 recovered from his backpack matched nineteen of the casings. Text messages showed Barber coordinating with Owens to acquire a gun for the hit, and social media posts included a video titled “80K” referencing the gang-ordered shooting.
Barber faced a state attempted murder charge and federal charges for felon in possession of a firearm and illegal possession of a machinegun. He pled guilty to one count of each federal charge. The district court applied a sentencing guideline cross-reference to use the attempted murder offense level (33) as his base, rather than the felon-in-possession level (26), and added a three-level enhancement for the severity of the victims’ injuries. Barber appealed both enhancements.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed both enhancements. On the attempted murder cross-reference, the court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that Barber used the Glock 22 in connection with the attempted murder. The presentence report and police investigation contained mutually reinforcing facts: ballistics matching nineteen casings, phone geolocation placing Barber at the scene, surveillance footage showing him entering the getaway vehicle, text messages coordinating the hit, and social media posts referencing the attack. Barber’s mere objections to these facts, without rebuttal evidence, were insufficient to overcome the preponderance standard. The court rejected Barber’s arguments that the lack of direct evidence, the eighteen-day gap between the shooting and his arrest, or the forty-mile distance to the crime scene undermined the connection.
On the bodily injury enhancement, the court held that the three-level enhancement was appropriate for injuries falling between “serious bodily injury” and “permanent or life-threatening bodily injury.” The victims’ multiple gunshot wounds to the back, arm, and leg required trauma center transfers, multi-day hospitalization, and surgery for one victim. This evidence clearly fell between the two-level enhancement for serious bodily injury (which includes surgery and hospitalization) and the four-level enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injury (which requires substantial risk of death or permanent impairment). The court distinguished United States v. Jackson, where a four-level enhancement was vacated due to lack of proof of permanent effects.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for sentencing enhancements; direct evidence is not required, and courts may draw common-sense inferences from the evidence presented.
- A defendant challenging sentencing enhancement findings in a presentence report bears the burden of presenting rebuttal evidence; mere objections do not suffice.
- The temporal and geographic separation between a crime and a defendant’s later arrest does not bar application of a firearm-use cross-reference if the evidence shows the weapon was used in connection with that crime.
- Bodily injury enhancements have three distinct tiers; injuries requiring surgical intervention and multi-day hospitalization may fall in the middle tier even if they do not create permanent impairment or substantial risk of death.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Fifth Circuit precedent that circumstantial evidence and common-sense inferences have substantial weight in federal sentencing proceedings. For defendants, the ruling makes clear that challenging a presentence report requires more than objecting to conclusions—they must present credible rebuttal evidence or accept the government’s factual proffer. For prosecutors and law enforcement, the decision affirms that modern investigative techniques (ballistics, geolocation, social media, surveillance footage) can collectively satisfy the preponderance-of-evidence standard for significant sentence enhancements, even when no single piece of evidence is conclusive.
The case also clarifies the three-tier bodily injury enhancement structure under the Guidelines. Serious injuries requiring surgery and hospitalization do not automatically cap enhancement at the two-level mark; if the injuries exceed typical serious bodily injury but fall short of permanent or life-threatening harm, the three-level middle tier applies. This gives sentencing courts meaningful discretion to calibrate punishment for violent crimes based on actual harm inflicted.