Sentencing: Procedural reasonableness; Enhancement using the second-degree murder cross-reference under USSG § 2K2.1(c); “Malice aforethought”; Whether the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant “acted at least recklessly” when he shot & killed the victim; Whether the district court properly considered the deterrence sentencing factor & defendant’s mitigation argument

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendant-Mills’s sentence for FIP of ammunition was properly enhanced under USSG § 2K2.1(c) and thus, rejected his challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. The court previously vacated his sentence, concluding that when applying the enhancement, the district court “made insufficient factual findings on causation, Mills’s justification defense, and Mills’s mental state . . . .” The district court then addressed all three factors at resentencing and imposed the same sentence—the statutory maximum penalty of 120 months. It ruled that Mills had caused the victim’s (M) death, and that he had the mens rea necessary to support the second-degree murder cross-reference. It rejected his “justification defense,” finding insufficient evidence to support it. Mills argued that the sentence imposed at resentencing was not procedurally reasonable. The court explained that “for the cross-reference to apply, the government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mills acted at least recklessly when he shot and killed” M. It upheld the district court’s conclusion that Mills had committed second-degree murder when he went to the house “‘locked and loaded[,]’” and he “‘willfully and wantonly and callously’ fired his shotgun at the car, ‘not once, but twice,’ and demonstrated a ‘man-endangering state of mind.’” Moreover, his social-media messages also displayed a “murderous mental state . . . .” It rejected his claim that the district court erred by considering the deterrence factor to be significant, concluding it “did not abuse its discretion by factoring in general deterrence of gang violence when it imposed Mills’s sentence.” The court further found that the “preparation for a confrontation weighed against any mitigation.” Affirmed.