Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02183/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Robert Charles Zimmerman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2183

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Robert Charles Zimmerman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2003

Filed: March 5, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Zimmerman appeals from the sentence imposed following the entry of

his plea of guilty to a charge of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Mr. Zimmerman maintains that the district court1

erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), which provides for a two-level

enhancement to a defendant's base offense level in drug cases "[i]f a dangerous

Appellate Case: 03-2183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2004 Entry ID: 1743017
-2-

weapon (including a firearm) was possessed." The enhancement applies "if the

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

with the offense." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) comment. (n. 3).

There is no question that a gun was present in Mr. Zimmerman's house or that

the drug conspiracy charged in the indictment operated out of that house. But

Mr. Zimmerman maintains that the gun belonged to a co-conspirator, and

Mr. Zimmerman testified that he had locked the gun away in the safe in which the

police found it to keep the co-conspirator from having access to it. He argues

therefore that his actions with respect to the gun were not in furtherance of the

conspiracy but "antithetical to the offense." See United States v. Lagasse, 87 F.3d 18,

23 (1st Cir. 1996).

The district court held that the enhancement was applicable even if

Mr. Zimmerman was telling the truth, and we agree. Mr. Zimmerman admitted that

his co-conspirator possessed the gun in the same room in Mr. Zimmerman's house in

which drugs were found, and so we can hardly say that it was not "clearly

improbable" that the gun was connected to the offense. We have often remarked that

guns and drug transactions are frequently connected. See, e.g., United States v.

Linson, 276 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, even if the enhancement

was not appropriate unless Mr. Zimmerman should have foreseen that his coconspirator would possess a gun, the district court acted properly here, because, as

the court remarked at sentencing, the use of a gun by a party to a drug conspiracy is

reasonably foreseeable. Cf. United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 379, 383-84 (8th Cir.

1999).

Finding no error, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2004 Entry ID: 1743017