Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03555/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03555-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph K. Johnston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3555

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Joseph K. Johnston, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2004

Filed: June 10, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Joseph K. Johnston pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of destructive

devices in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. The district court1

imposed concurrent sentences of forty-six months’ imprisonment and three years’

supervised release on each count. Johnston appeals the district court’s determination

that he possessed the destructive devices “in connection with” another felony offense,

a conclusion that resulted in application of a four-level enhancement under United

States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(5). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Entry ID: 1776020 
-2-

Johnston was stopped for a traffic violation. During the course of the stop,

officers observed an improvised explosive device in the vehicle. Johnston was placed

under arrest, following which the officers conducted an inventory search of the

vehicle’s trunk, where they found another improvised explosive device as well as

materials commonly associated with the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.

They also found a video camera that appeared destined to be placed inside a bird

house (also found in the trunk) and used for surveillance at Johnston’s residence.

Officers then obtained a search warrant, which they executed at the residence

Johnston shared with his girlfriend. There they found additional improvised

explosive devices and components that could have been assembled into such devices.

The officers also recovered a number of drug-related items from this same small area

of the basement including articles commonly used in the illegal manufacture of

methamphetamine, such as a chemistry flask, plastic tubing, rubber stoppers, glass

tubes, scales, and plastic bags. Additionally, Johnston’s girlfriend stated during an

interview that Johnston had manufactured methamphetamine at their residence. 

The district court’s finding regarding Johnston’s purpose in possessing the

destructive devices is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d

685, 686 (8th Cir. 1997).

United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(5) provides that “[i]f the

defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another

felony offense ... increase [the offense level] by 4 levels.” Application note 1 to

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 states that the term “firearm” includes any destructive device. The

enhancement applies, where the other felony offense is a drug crime, if the presence

of the destructive devices facilitates, or has the potential to facilitate, the drug crime.

United States v. Kanatzar, No. 03-3376, slip op. at 6 (8th Cir. June 7, 2004); Regans,

125 F.3d at 686 (holding that this interpretation of the phrase “in relation to” in 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) applies equally to the “in connection with” language of U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(5)). In fact, the destructive devices’ close physical proximity to the drugAppellate Case: 03-3555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Entry ID: 1776020 
-3-

manufacturing materials alone “may be sufficient to provide the nexus required

between the weapon and the [other felony offense]” because the possibility exists that

the destructive devices may facilitate the illegal drug manufacturing. United States

v. Johnson, 60 F.3d 422, 423 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The enhancement is

inapplicable, however, if the proximity of the destructive devices to the drug

manufacturing materials is coincidental or accidental, Regans, 125 F.3d at 686, or if

it otherwise appears “clearly improbable” that they were possessed in connection

with another felony offense. United States v. Linson, 276 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.

2002). 

Given the nature of the devices, their close physical proximity to the drug

manufacturing materials found in the residence, the fact that Johnston had destructive

devices and drug manufacturing materials with him at the time of his arrest, the lack

of any indication that their presence in the vehicle or residence was coincidental or

accidental, and the girlfriend’s statement that Johnston manufactured

methamphetamine in the house, we conclude that there is a sufficient nexus between

the destructive devices and Johnston’s illegal methamphetamine manufacturing to

support application of the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement. Because the

destructive devices and components thereof might have emboldened Johnston in his

drug-related conduct, they therefore had the potential of facilitating another felony

offense. Cf. United States v. Kolley, 330 F.3d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 2003).

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3555 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Entry ID: 1776020