Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02203/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Charles N. Wells
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2203

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Charles N. Wells, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Wells pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1(C). The district court2

sentenced him to thirty months of imprisonment (which was the low end of the

advisory Guidelines range of 30-37 months) and three years of supervised release.

Wells appeals his sentence contending the district court erred in applying a two-level

Appellate Case: 09-2203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625341
-2-

enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 2D1.1(b)(1) for

possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense. Wells also appeals

the district court's denial of his request for a downward departure or variance based

on his health condition. We affirm.

We review the factual findings underpinning the district court's application of

a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error. E.g., United

States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014, 1016 (8th Cir. 2007). In order for an

enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) to apply, "[t]he government must simply show that

it is not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the drug offense."

United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008). The record shows that,

shortly after Wells was arrested following a controlled buy, he admitted having a

pistol and precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine in his mobile home.

A subsequent search of the mobile home uncovered the pistol hidden in the bottom of

a water cooler, a jar of soaking pseudoephedrine pills, electronic scales, drug

packaging items, several grams of methamphetamine, and $29,144.00 in U.S.

currency. Based on these facts, the district court did not clearly err in finding the

pistol was connected to the drug offense. See United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083,

1086 (8th Cir. 2000) ("Evidence that the weapon was found in the same location as

drugs or drug paraphernalia usually suffices.").

We decline to review Wells's claim the district court improperly denied his

request for a downward departure based on his health condition because Wells does

not argue – and the record does not indicate – the district court denied the request

based upon an improper motive or because it believed it had no authority to grant the

request. See United States v. Johnson, 517 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2008) ("We will

generally not review a decision not to grant a downward departure unless the district

court had an unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought it was without authority

to grant the departure.").

Appellate Case: 09-2203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625341
-3-

Finally, Wells does not argue the district court committed any procedural errors

in considering his request for a downward variance based on his health condition, so

his claim amounts to a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., United States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105,

1110 (8th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the standard of review), we conclude the thirtymonth sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579,

583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence at the

bottom of the Guidelines range).

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2203 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625341