Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02780/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02780-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph J. Kiser
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2780

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Joseph J. Kiser, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

Filed: February 6, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph J. Kiser, defendant and appellant, pleaded guilty to distributing

methamphetamine in a protected zone, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 21

U.S.C. § 860(a). The amount of methamphetamine, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3),

(c)(4), and the location of the transaction within 1000 feet of a school zone, see

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2(a)(2), established a base offense level of thirty-three. At sentencing

the district court1

 reduced Kiser’s offense level by three levels for acceptance of

Appellate Case: 06-2780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2007 Entry ID: 3275740
-2-

responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b), but added two levels for possession of a

firearm, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The court placed Kiser in Criminal History

Category I, resulting in a recommended sentencing guidelines range of 121 to 151

months.

The district court sentenced Kiser to 121 months incarceration (ten years, one

month). Kiser appeals.

Although we recognize the sentence is severe, it is within the guidelines range.

See United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876, 878-79 (8th Cir. 2006). Kiser principally

asserts that a rule of lenity should bar a double enhancement of his sentence, i.e., an

increase of his base offense level for distributing drugs near a school zone and a

further two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm during relevant conduct. 

We reject Kiser’s argument. We decided a similar issue in United States v.

Ault, 446 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2006). We said:

The Guidelines provide that this enhancement “should be applied if the

weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon

was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3).

“[T]he dangerous weapon enhancement applies if the firearm is present

during ‘relevant conduct,’ as defined by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), not

merely during the offense of conviction.” United States v. Savage, 414

F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Ault, 446 F.3d at 824 (emphasis in the original). While Ault and the prior Savage case

did not relate to the application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) to a conviction for

distribution in a protected zone, as here, application note three to § 2D1.1 states that

the “enhancement for weapon possession . . . . also applies to offenses that are

referenced to § 2D1.1,” including § 2D1.2(a)(1) and (2). No case directly supports

Kiser’s contention that the enhancement is inapplicable. Moreover, the interpretation

Appellate Case: 06-2780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2007 Entry ID: 3275740
-3-

of the guidelines by this court requires that the district court apply the § 2D1.1(b)(1)

relevant conduct enhancement in determining a suggested sentence pursuant to the

guidelines. See United States v. Fairchild, 189 F.3d 769, 779 (8th Cir. 1999) (“The

district court must impose the [2D1.1(b)(1)] enhancement unless it finds that it is

‘clearly improbable that the weapon had a nexus to criminal activity.’” (emphasis

added)).

There being no error in the sentencing, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2780 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2007 Entry ID: 3275740