United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1616

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Anthony Wilson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 20, 2010

Filed: September 29, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and the district court1

 sentenced him to an 87-month

term of imprisonment. In calculating the advisory sentencing range, the district court

applied a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(U.S.S.G.) § 2K2.1(b)(6) after finding Wilson's possession of the firearm was in

connection with another felony offense, to wit, his possession of heroin. Wilson

appeals arguing (1) there was insufficient evidence his possession of the firearm

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
facilitated his possession of heroin, and (2) the district court's factfindings were

inadequate.

We review the district court's factual determination that a defendant possessed

a firearm in connection with another felony for clear error. United States v.

Strickland, 594 F.3d 1031, 1032 (8th Cir. 2010). When the other felony offense is

simple drug possession, rather than drug trafficking, a district court may still apply the

four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6), but only after affirmatively

finding the weapon facilitated the drug possession offense. United States v.

Blankenship, 552 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2009).

Wilson was apprehended with a handgun in his waistband and a small amount

of heroin (1.08 grams) on his person. In assessing whether the four-level

enhancement applied, the district court stated:

And as I understand it, there is no dispute here that the defendant's

possession of heroin that was found, whether it was on his person or in

his car, it was in his possession. And the parties don't dispute that that

is a felony. Whether it was for his possession for his own use or whether

it was for distribution, it doesn't matter. He had possession of a quantity

-- 1.08 grams of heroin -- and that is a felony. He also had possession of

a firearm, which is the subject of this indictment. 

And the Application Notes provide some guidance here. Application

Note 14 provides that, "Subsection (b)(6) applies if the firearm facilitated

or had the potential of facilitating another felony offense or another

offense." And "another felony offense" is defined as, well, basically any

felony offense "other than one that involves explosives or firearms

possession or drug trafficking." 

So the question here is whether the firearm that Mr. Wilson had in his

possession facilitated or had the potential of facilitating his felony

possession of heroin. And I believe that it would be appropriate to

conclude that the possession of the firearm did have the potential of

-2-
facilitating the felony offense of possession because the firearm could be

used as a means of protecting the drugs that were in his possession and

thereby facilitating his possession of those drugs or his continued

possession of those drugs.

There is certainly no dispute that Mr. Wilson had knowing possession of

this firearm. I doubt that it was accidental that he had heroin in his

possession at the same time, and I don't believe that this is coincidental

that these two items were in his possession at the same time. Normally

when people have something of value to them in their possession, they

take measures to protect that item of value. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson decided to use a firearm to protect what was

of value to him; and I think that the four-level increase is appropriate.

Sent. Tr. at 16-17.

We reject Wilson's claim there was insufficient evidence for the district court

to find the firearm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate Wilson's drug

possession. Wilson argued the evidence showed the simultaneous possession of the

firearm and heroin was nothing more than coincidence, but the district court

specifically noted "when people have something of value to them in their possession

[i.e., the heroin], they take measures to protect that item of value." Id. at 17. See

Strickland, 594 F.3d at 1033 (affirming a § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement in a drug

possession case where a defendant gave his fear of being robbed as the reason for his

possession of a firearm, and the district court noted the only thing of value on the

defendant at the time of his arrest was drugs).

We also reject Wilson's claim that the district court's factfindings were

inadequate. The district court specifically found "the possession of the firearm did

have the potential of facilitating the felony offense of possession because the firearm

could be used as a means of protecting the drugs that were in his possession and

-3-
thereby facilitating his possession of those drugs or his continued possession of those

drugs." Id. at 17.

Having identified no clear error, we affirm.

______________________________

-4-