Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03816/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03816-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Dacre
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, Senior United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3816

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

* 

Gerald Dacre, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: August 1, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Dacre appeals the district court’s judgment1

 of October 13, 2005

sentencing him to 84 months’ imprisonment for possession with the intent to distribute

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and a concurrent term of 48

months’ imprisonment for use of a communications facility (telephone) in committing

Appellate Case: 05-3816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073242
2

On February 22, 2006, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss

its cross-appeal at No. 05-4088.

3

In sentencing Dacre, the district court departed downward from an advisory

guideline range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment.

-2-

a drug felony offense, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).2

 Dacre challenges the district court’s

conclusion that he possessed a firearm in connection with these drug offenses, which

resulted in a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and

rendered him ineligible for application of the “safety valve,” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.3

 We

affirm.

Dacre contends the district court should have allowed him to use results from

a defense-generated polygraph examination to bolster his claim that he did not possess

a firearm in connection with his drug offenses. At sentencing, the district court “may

consider relevant information . . . provided that the information has sufficient indicia

of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). We review the

district court’s decision to exclude polygraph evidence at sentencing for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Knife, 9 F.3d 705, 706 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing

U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)) (reviewing for abuse of discretion whether the district court

erred in admitting hearsay testimony at sentencing); United States v. Duverge Perez,

295 F.3d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2002) (reviewing for abuse of discretion whether the

district court erred in excluding polygraph evidence at sentencing). 

The district court decided that, absent a stipulation of the parties, it would

evaluate the credibility of the witnesses without weighing expert opinion on polygraph

results. The court reached this decision based on the uncertainties surrounding the

reliability of polygraph examinations, which the Supreme Court and this court have

recognized. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309-12, 315-17 (1998);

Ortega v. United States, 270 F.3d 540, 547-48 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Appellate Case: 05-3816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073242
-3-

The district court did not abuse its discretion in resolving this issue in favor of

exclusion of the polygraph evidence. 

As an alternative argument, Dacre contends that even without the polygraph

results, the evidence does not support an enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm in connection with his drug offenses.

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) provides, “If a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was

possessed, increase [base offense level] by 2 levels.” Application note 3 of the

Commentary to Section 2D1.1 states, “The enhancement for weapon possession

reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The

adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly

improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”

“At sentencing, the burden is on the government to show by a preponderance

of the evidence that a dangerous weapon was present and that it was not clearly

improbable that the weapon had a nexus with the criminal activity.” United States v.

Betz, 82 F.3d 205, 210 (8th Cir. 1996). “We will not reverse the district court’s

factual finding that [Dacre] possessed a firearm for purposes of § 2D1.1 unless the

district court’s finding is clearly erroneous.” United States v. Hayes, 15 F.3d 125, 127

(8th Cir. 1994). 

“A nexus exists where there is a temporal and spatial relation between the

weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” United States v. Thompson,

210 F.3d 855, 862 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “The

government need not prove the defendant had actual possession of the weapon;

constructive possession will do.” United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th

Cir. 2005). Further, “the dangerous-weapon enhancement applies if the weapon was

used during acts that ‘were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or

plan as the offense of conviction.’” United States v. Savage, 414 F.3d 964, 966 (8th

Cir. 2005) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)). 

Appellate Case: 05-3816 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073242
-4-

According to Dacre, the guns he possessed had no connection with his drug

trafficking activities. The evidence relied on by the sentencing judge is to the

contrary. 

First, Dacre admits he had a gun on his kitchen table on an occasion where he

paid drug proceeds to the government’s informant, and the informant testified that he

saw the gun. Dacre contends the gun was on the table as he had just finished cleaning

it. He asserts this weapon was not to aid him in his drug trafficking activity. The

district court did not err in rejecting this claim. See United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d

707, 732 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting defendant’s claim that, during a drug transaction,

he could “show off” a gun to his drug supplier and allow the supplier to hold the gun

without resulting in a gun possession enhancement under Section 2D1.1(b)(1)). 

Second, the government’s informant testified at the sentencing hearing that

Dacre sometimes wore a gun in a holster during drug transactions at the informant’s

apartment. The informant further testified that Dacre would open his coat to show the

informant the gun. This testimony is consistent with Dacre’s recorded remarks in

which he refers to using a gun in drug transactions. Referring to his fanny-pack,

Dacre told the informant, “This is what I also carry my gun in.” and joked, “No,

Officer, I don’t have anything. Oh, don’t look there. Bang.” Sent. Tr. at 75. 

Third, Dacre kept several loaded guns in close proximity to drugs and drug

paraphernalia. From Dacre’s residence, the police recovered, among other things, a

loaded .357-caliber revolver under a couch cushion in the living room, a loaded 12-

gauge shotgun leaning against the living room wall, a loaded .45-caliber handgun on

a chest in the living room, four gun holsters, small amounts of methamphetamine (less

than one gram) in the laundry room, $3,900 in cash in kitchen drawers, and a digital

scale. See, e.g., United States v. Cave, 293 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 2002)

(“[E]vidence that the weapon was found in the same location as drugs or drug

paraphernalia usually suffices.”); Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 533 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 05-3816 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073242
-5-

1999) (“Based on the number, type, and the state of readiness of the weapons found

. . . we can not agree . . . that the district court ‘clearly erred’ and that it was ‘clearly

improbable’ that the firearms were related to the drug trafficking activities . . . .”);

United States v. Macklin, 104 F.3d 1046, 1048 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Given the proximity

of the firearms to the drugs in this case, the ease with which the defendants could

access the firearms, the ongoing drug trafficking occurring out of the residence at

5243 Cates, and the likely need for the defendants to protect both the drugs and the

cash found in the residence, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding

that it was not clearly improbable that the firearms were connected with the offense

of drug trafficking.”). 

The precedents support the district judge’s determination that defendant

possessed a firearm in connection with the drug offense. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3816 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Entry ID: 2073242