United States of America v. Edin Anael Solis_Rodriguez

Charlotte, North Carolina criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).



Solis-Rodriguez grew up in Honduras. Having unlawfully entered the United States, he was deported in 2018. He then reentered—again unlawfully.



In August 2020, Solis-Rodriguez entered a Charlotte, North Carolina restaurant with a Hi-Point .45 caliber pistol visibly tucked in the back of his pants. Scared staff called the police. When police officers arrived, they asked Solis-Rodriguez if he had a gun or spoke English. He answered "no” to both questions. The officers, with his consent, then frisked Solis-Rodriguez and found the loaded Hi-Point pistol.



In November 2021, Solis-Rodriguez and Chris Silva got into an argument at The Taco Bar restaurant, also in Charlotte, North Carolina. According to Solis-Rodriguez, Silva threatened to kill him and his family. Silva and Solis-Rodriguez went outside, and Silva spoke with a security guard. At the same time, Solis-Rodriguez got a pistol from his car. He began arguing with Silva again, pulled out his pistol and shot him at point-blank range. The bullets struck Silva's chest and left hand. He went into a four-day coma and required several surgeries.



Police officers collected nine-millimeter shell casings at the shooting scene. Two days later, they arrested Solis-Rodriguez at his apartment. Solis-Rodriguez admitted to the police that he shot Silva but claimed he did so only in response to Silva's threats. Police officers found a nine-millimeter pistol in Solis-Rodriguez's apartment that they later determined matched the shell casings found at the crime scene, along with the clothes Solis-Rodriguez wore the night of the November shooting. Solis-Rodriguez admitted he had used that pistol. He also admitted to entering the country unlawfully.



A grand jury indicted Solis-Rodriguez on two counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)—one count for the August 2020 incident and another for the November 2021 shooting.1 After Solis-Rodriguez agreed to plead guilty, the government filed a written factual basis, which Solis-Rodriguez did not dispute.

A federal magistrate judge conducted a plea hearing.2 Solis-Rodriguez received assistance from a Spanish-language interpreter. The judge explained that Solis-Rodriguez faced two counts, and "[e]ach of these counts alleges the same offense, possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. The difference between the counts is that they occurred on different dates.” J.A. 18. The judge further clarified that "[e]ach of these offenses is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(5). Each of these offenses alleges possession of a firearm by an illegal alien.” J.A. 19. He then asked the prosecutor "what's the maximum penalty for that offense?” Id. The prosecutor responded, "[t]he maximum term of imprisonment [is] 10 years, a $250,000 fine, and up to three years of supervised release.”





A probation officer prepared a presentence report ("PSR”) following the guilty plea. To determine his offense level, the PSR applied a 4-level enhancement for Solis-Rodriguez's use of a firearm in connection with attempted murder. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018). The base offense level plus the enhancement resulted in an offense level of 37. The PSR then subtracted 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, for a total offense level of 34. Solis-Rodriguez had 1 criminal history point for entering the country illegally. Combining the total offense level with his criminal history point, the guidelines range for Solis-Rodriguez's potential imprisonment term was 151 to 188 months. The PSR also stated that each § 922(g)(5) count carried a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment. Finally, the PSR flagged that under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d) (2018), the sentences must run consecutively up and until the combined sentences reach the total maximum punishment—here, 20 years' imprisonment.



Solis-Rodriguez raised a couple of objections to the PSR. He argued that the attempted murder enhancement should not apply because he shot Silva in self-defense. And he argued that the two § 922(g)(5) offenses were really just one continuing offense with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.



At the sentencing hearing, the district court first accepted Solis-Rodriguez's guilty plea. The court then rejected Solis-Rodriguez's "continuing offense” argument. It explained that the use of two different guns in the two incidents meant there were "two separate counts of conviction,” allowing for stacked sentences. J.A. 91. And the court rejected Solis-Rodriguez's objection to the murder enhancement because Solis-Rodriguez acted unreasonably by using violence and not retreating. So, it adopted the PSR's guidelines range of 151 to 188 months' imprisonment.



Next, the court proceeded with Solis-Rodriguez's allocution. Solis-Rodriguez expressed remorse during his allocution and requested to be placed close to his family in Charlotte. The district court agreed to make such a recommendation.



Then, the court asked for arguments about the appropriate sentence. Solis-Rodriguez's counsel argued for a 151-month sentence. He pointed out that "Mr. Solis-Rodriguez stands before the Court a very young man.” J.A. 108. He was 22 years old at the time. And counsel noted Solis-Rodriguez's lack of any violent or weapons-related criminal history. The government then responded by arguing for a 180-month sentence. It recounted the details of the two charged incidents as well as the October 2021 party incident. It described the calculated nature of the November 2021 shooting. And it argued Solis-Rodriguez "thinks violence is the answer to his problems.” J.A. 110.



The district court first determined the standard conditions of supervision "are correct and appropriate to be imposed in this case as to this defendant” after reviewing the facts of the case. J.A. 112. It then addressed Solis-Rodriguez as it "consider[ed] a series of sentencing factors that were enacted by Congress that guide courts in fashioning sentences that are sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing.”4 J.A. 114. The court emphasized it "has considered all of the sentencing factors. Whether it mentions a sentencing factor or not, I want it clear on the record that the Court has considered all of the sentencing factors.” Id.



The court then "highlighted some [factors] that it finds particularly important.” J.A. 115. It discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense as "very, very disturbing.” J.A. 114. The district judge, describing himself "[a]s a father like you,” acknowledged Solis-Rodriguez's frustration with Silva's threats. Id. But he pointed out that violence was not the proper solution. The court also highlighted a need to specifically deter Solis-Rodriguez from further criminal conduct before flagging the importance of general deterrence. And finally, it "need[ed] to promote respect for the law. And the law is the mechanism for resolving disputes, not shooting somebody in their chest and in their arm.” J.A. 115. The court wrapped up by reiterating it had considered all the sentencing factors.



The court imposed a 120-month sentence on Count 1 and a 60-month sentence on Count 2, running consecutively for a total of 180 months' imprisonment. After explaining the sentence, the district court asked counsel "if there's any legal reason why this sentence as proposed should not be imposed?” J.A. 121. Solis-Rodriguez's counsel responded, "[j]ust the issues that we previously raised that the Court overruled.”

Affirmed