Inferring Specific Intent to Kill from Shooting into Occupied Vehicle Establishes Attempted Murder Enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)

Introduction

United States v. Katarena Moore is a Sixth Circuit decision addressing how a district court may infer specific intent to kill for sentencing purposes when a defendant fires multiple shots into a vehicle occupied by another person. Katarena Moore, a felon with a prior theft conviction, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court applied U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)(1)’s cross-reference to the first-degree murder guideline, concluding that Moore attempted to kill Martez Smith by firing four rounds into his car. Moore appealed the enhancement, arguing that the facts did not support a finding of specific intent to kill and that the court erred procedurally. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that shooting into a confined space occupied by a victim reasonably supports an inference of intent to kill under the clear-error standard.

Summary of the Judgment

The court of appeals reviewed two issues: the proper calculation of Moore’s Guidelines range under §2K2.1(c)(1) and whether the district court clearly erred in finding specific intent to kill. – The district court applied a cross-reference to U.S.S.G. §2A2.1(a)(1) (first-degree murder attempt), setting Moore’s base offense level at 33. – After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the advisory range was 108–121 months, and the court ultimately imposed a 60-month sentence below the range. – On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. – Relying on witness testimony and gas-station surveillance video showing Moore pacing with a gun and firing four shots into Smith’s car—one bullet leaving a hole near the driver’s seat—the court held that the district court’s inference of specific intent to kill was plausible. – Moore’s challenges (distance, absence of injury, self-defense claim, alleged burden-shifting) did not overcome the deferential standard. The enhancement was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Guidelines sentencing procedure and post-Booker advisory range.
United States v. LaLonde, 509 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) – De novo review of legal conclusions in Guidelines calculations.
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387 (2018) – “Clear error” standard for factual findings.
United States v. Grant, 15 F.4th 452 (6th Cir. 2021) – Pointing and firing a gun establishes specific intent to kill.
United States v. Caston, 851 F. App’x 557 (6th Cir. 2021) – Shooting into an occupied vehicle supports attempted-murder enhancement.
United States v. Reverand, No. 23-6078, 2025 WL 637438 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025) – Same principle applied to shooting into a car.
United States v. James, 575 F. App’x 588 (6th Cir. 2014) – Shooting in a victim’s direction is sufficient for intent to kill.
United States v. Byrd, 689 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2012) – Preponderance-of-evidence standard at sentencing.
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) – Framework for clear-error review.
United States v. Poynter, 495 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2007) – Deference to district court’s live-testimony credibility determinations.

Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s analysis proceeds in three steps:

Sentencing framework: After Moore pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), the district court had to calculate the advisory Guidelines range. Under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)(1), possession of a firearm “in connection with the attempted commission of another offense” triggers a cross-reference to the guideline for that offense. Attempted first-degree murder is covered by §2A2.1(a)(1), base level 33.
Standard of proof and review: At sentencing, the government bears the burden of proving enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence. Factual findings—such as intent—are reviewed on appeal for clear error, i.e., only reversed if “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred.
Inference of specific intent: Moore’s conduct—pacing with a loaded gun, walking just out of camera frame, and firing four shots at close range into Smith’s car—combined with physical evidence (a bullet hole near the driver’s seat) “plausibly” supports the conclusion that she acted with specific intent to kill. The court rejected Moore’s counterarguments:
- Distance and rapid fire do not preclude intent—shooters need not be marksmen or score a hit.
- Self-defense was undermined by credible video and officer testimony showing the trash can was thrown after the shooting.
- Alleged burden-shifting remark did not misallocate the legal standard; the court simply noted that Moore could have introduced evidence to contradict the government’s version.

Impact

This decision reinforces that:

Shooting into a confined space where a person sits is sufficient to infer specific intent to kill for sentencing enhancements.
District courts enjoy broad discretion in assessing credibility and real-time evidence; appellate courts will rarely overturn plausible factual inferences.
Plaintiffs and prosecutors may rely on surveillance footage and corroborated witness testimony to prove attempted-murder enhancements by a preponderance of evidence.
The case will guide lower courts in applying U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)(1) to felon-in-possession prosecutions involving attempted violence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preponderance of the evidence: A standard requiring the government to show that its version of facts is more likely than not.
Clear error: The appellate standard that defers to the district court unless the record leaves a “definite and firm conviction” of a mistake.
Guidelines cross-reference (§2K2.1(c)(1)): When a firearm is used in connection with another offense, the court applies the guideline for that offense instead of the base firearm guideline.
Base offense level: The starting point in the Sentencing Table that corresponds to the seriousness of the offense.
Specific intent to kill: A mental state requiring proof that the defendant acted with the purpose of ending a human life.
Malice aforethought: The mental element of first-degree murder involving premeditation and intention to kill.
§3553(a) factors: Statutory factors courts must consider in imposing a sentence, including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, and need for deterrence.
Attempt doctrine: Criminal liability for taking a substantial step toward committing a crime with the requisite intent, even if the crime is not completed.

Conclusion

United States v. Moore clarifies that firing multiple rounds into a vehicle occupied by a victim is a sufficient basis for a district court to infer specific intent to kill and impose a first-degree murder attempt enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(c)(1). The Sixth Circuit’s deference to district court fact-finding underscores the importance of live testimony, video evidence, and common-sense in sentencing decisions. This ruling will shape future firearm possession cases by affirming that intentional shooting into a confined space can trigger severe enhancements, even when no death occurs.