Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10854/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10854-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shane Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10854

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANE MARTIN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-00191-ECM-JTA-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10854

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Shane Martin appeals the district court’s application of a 

two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm in 

connection with an offense under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). We 

affirm. 

I.

In April and May 2023, agents from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, alongside local law enforcement, investigated

methamphetamine distribution in Dothan, Alabama. As relevant 

here, agents conducted two warranted searches of local residences. 

At the first—a “narcotics stash house” used by Martin’s coconspirator, Michael Blackmon—officers unearthed two baggies 

containing suspected methamphetamine. At the second—

Blackmon’s residence—agents found an “unspecified amount of 

U.S. currency” and a loaded .38 caliber revolver. 

Blackmon admitted that he had recently obtained multipleounce quantities of methamphetamine from Martin. He added 

that the drugs recovered from the stash house were purchased 

from Martin. These admissions confirmed what agents suspected: 

Blackmon was not merely Martin’s buyer, but a co-conspirator in 

the distribution ring. Intercepted text messages and calls revealed 

that Blackmon and Martin discussed methamphetamine sales. On 

one occasion, Blackmon explained that Martin once “did [him] 

eight” ounces of methamphetamine for $1,000. And electronic 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 2 of 7
24-10854 Opinion of the Court 3

surveillance showed Martin meeting Blackmon at the stash house 

on April 25 and 26, 2023, coinciding with the texts and calls. 

A grand jury indicted Martin, Blackmon, and five others for 

conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 

grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841 (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. Martin pleaded guilty. 

The Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation 

Report. The Report calculated a base offense level of 32 because 

the conspiracy involved 340.2 grams of methamphetamine. It 

applied a two-level enhancement “because a dangerous weapon 

(including a firearm) was possessed” by Martin’s co-conspirator, 

Blackmon. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 2023). After subtracting 

three levels for Martin’s timely plea and acceptance of 

responsibility, the Report computed Martin’s total offense level at 

31. Martin’s criminal history—including convictions for possession 

of marijuana, discharging a firearm into an occupied building, and 

multiple domestic violence offenses—resulted in a criminal history 

category of V. The Report calculated Martin’s Guidelines range as

168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. 

The district court then held a sentencing hearing. Martin’s 

counsel objected to the firearm enhancement, contending that 

Martin could not reasonably foresee that Blackmon would possess

a firearm. In response, the government cited the “countless cases 

recognizing the connection between firearms and drug trafficking” 

and flagged Martin’s own criminal history. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10854

The district court sided with the government. The court 

emphasized Martin’s (1) “close familial relationship with Mr. 

Blackmon”; (2) “prior involvement in drug distribution with the 

possession of a weapon”; and (3) that “Mr. Blackmon knew to reach 

out to Mr. Martin for the acquisition of a substantial amount of 

methamphetamine.” The district court thus concluded that it “was 

reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Martin that Mr. Blackmon would 

have and would possess a weapon as part of the drug conspiracy.” 

The court adopted the Report’s Guidelines calculation and

sentenced Martin to 168 months’ imprisonment. 

II.

We review the district court’s “findings of fact for clear error 

and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to those facts de 

novo.” United States v. Sotis, 89 F.4th 862, 878 (11th Cir. 2023)

(quotation omitted). “Whether a defendant possessed a firearm for 

purposes of § 2D1.1(b)(1) is a factual finding that we review under 

the clear-error standard.” United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1204 

(11th Cir. 2017). For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court 

“must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 

1137 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

III.

The Sentencing Guidelines apply a two-level enhancement 

“[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” 

during an offense. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). According to the 

Guidelines commentary, the enhancement applies “if the weapon 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 4 of 7
24-10854 Opinion of the Court 5

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

connected with the offense.” Id. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). We have 

held that the enhancement “may be applied when a firearm is 

possessed by a co-conspirator.” United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 

1359 (11th Cir. 2005). To apply the enhancement to a coconspirator, the government must prove that “(1) the possessor of 

the firearm was a co-conspirator, (2) the possession was in 

furtherance of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant was a member of 

the conspiracy at the time of possession, and (4) the co-conspirator 

possession was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” Id.

(quotation omitted and emphasis deleted). 

On appeal, Martin does not dispute the first three elements 

of that test. Instead, he contends that the district court erred in 

applying the sentencing enhancement because he could not have 

reasonably foreseen Blackmon’s firearm possession. According to 

Martin, although “there was a familial connection,” his “drug trade 

connection” to Blackmon “was minimal at best.” 

The district court did not clearly err in applying the firearm 

enhancement for three reasons. First, Martin’s criminal history 

belies his claim. Martin was convicted in 2007 for possessing a “9 

mm rifle” alongside a significant amount of marijuana in his 

vehicle. Having possessed a firearm during his own drug-related 

offense, Martin was not blind to the “frequent and overpowering 

connection between the use of firearms and narcotics traffic.” 

United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10854

omitted). That makes it more likely that Martin reasonably 

foresaw Blackmon’s possession of a firearm. 

Second, Martin and Blackmon’s familial relationship does 

Martin no favors. At sentencing, Martin asserted that their “limited 

involvement” made it less likely that Martin could have predicted

Blackmon “would have a firearm in dealing with him.” Martin 

misconstrues the inquiry. The question is not what safety measures 

Blackmon took when meeting Martin, but whether Martin could 

foresee that Blackmon would possess a firearm during the relevant 

offense—the conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute a large quantity of methamphetamine. 

Circuit precedent reinforces this conclusion. In Fields, for 

example, this Court affirmed the application of a firearm 

enhancement to a co-conspirator. See 408 F.3d at 1360. We 

explained that the “close relationship” between co-conspirators 

who “referred to each other as cousins” “increase[d] the probability 

that Fields would be able to foresee [his co-conspirator’s] actions, 

including his possession of a firearm in connection with his drug 

business.” Id. at 1359. So too here. Martin’s familial relationship 

with Blackmon makes it more likely that he could reasonably 

foresee Blackmon’s firearm possession—not less. 

Third, Martin’s prior drug-related history with Blackmon 

tells a similar story. Blackmon divulged to agents that the two 

baggies of methamphetamine recovered from the stash house 

were “purchased from Martin.” Intercepted communications 

showed the two men wrangling over price; on one occasion, 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 6 of 7
24-10854 Opinion of the Court 7

Martin explained that he could only supply Blackmon with four 

ounces of methamphetamine rather than the requested-for five. 

And electronic surveillance captured Martin and Blackmon 

meeting multiple times at the stash house during the alleged 

conspiracy. Finally, at sentencing, Martin’s counsel conceded that 

“Blackmon was heavily involved in the drug trade.” 

“[W]here the conspiracy involved trafficking in lucrative and 

illegal drugs,” we have “found it reasonably foreseeable that a coconspirator would possess a firearm.” Pham, 463 F.3d at 1246. 

Martin’s awareness of Blackmon’s role in narcotics distribution, 

coupled with his own experience that “guns are a tool of the drug 

trade,” make his arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. United 

States v. Cruz, 805 F.3d 1464, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986) (quotation 

omitted). That conclusion holds despite Martin’s “protestations 

that [he] w[as] in fact unaware of the firearm possession.” United 

States v. Martinez, 924 F.2d 209, 210 (11th Cir. 1991). 

IV.

Because the district court did not clearly err in applying the 

firearm enhancement, we AFFIRM. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10854 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 7 of 7