Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03329/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Percy LeNeal Harrell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3329

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Percy LeNeal Harrell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2007

Filed: June 11, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Percy Harrell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, over Harrell’s objection, the district court1

applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and sentenced Harrell to 168 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. He appeals, contesting the two-level enhancement. Reviewing the

Appellate Case: 06-3329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318046
-2-

district court’s finding for clear error, see United States v. Braggs, 317 F.3d 901, 904

(8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

The district court concluded that, because two handguns and $7,700 in admitted

drug proceeds were found in Harrell’s house, it was not clearly improbable that there

was a nexus between the guns and drug activities; the court also noted the presence

of a small amount of crack cocaine in the house plus drug-packaging paraphernalia

in the detached garage. The court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement.

See Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 533 (8th Cir. 1999) (“close proximity of

firearms and ‘drug money’ can give rise to an inference that the firearms are present

to protect the money and drugs, which is a nexus sufficient to support an enhancement

under 2D1.1(b)(1)”); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (clearly improbable

standard).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318046