2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-30-2012

USA v. Timothy Younger

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2697

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Timothy Younger" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1237.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1237
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 09-2697

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TIMOTHY YOUNGER,

also known as Tim Younger,

also known as Little Tim,

also known as Jahmar Younger,

also known as Marvin Young,

also known as Marvin Younger,

Timothy Younger,

Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00261-001)

District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 23, 2012

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: March 30, 2012)

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________
2

RENDELL, Circuit Judge

Defendant Timothy Younger appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The only issue 

Younger raises on appeal is whether the District Court properly applied a sentencing 

enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines for possession of a 

firearm in connection with another felony offense. For the following reasons, we will 

affirm.

.

Younger was stopped by Pittsburgh police officers on June 21, 2007 for operating 

a motor vehicle with an expired registration. Police officers found a loaded Ruger nine 

millimeter handgun, nine ecstasy pills, a digital scale, and $5,965 in cash in Younger’s 

possession. The police arrested Younger. Having previously been convicted of a felony 

in 2003, a grand jury charged Younger with two counts of violating § 922(g)(1).

1

 

Younger pled guilty, and was sentenced on May 26, 2009 to fifty-seven months’ 

imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

2

Younger objected to the District Court’s application of the sentencing 

enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6) of the Guidelines. That enhancement calls for a 

 

 1 One count stemmed from this instance of possession, and the other count stemmed from 

Younger’s possession of a firearm on January 11, 2007. 

2 Younger’s sentence was calculated as follows: the District Court started with a base 

offense level of twenty under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). Then, the District Court applied the 

four-level enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6) for possession of a firearm in 

connection with another felony offense. The District Court applied a three-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1. With an adjusted offense 

level of twenty-one and a criminal history placing him in Category IV, the Guidelines

sentencing range was fifty-seven to seventy-one months.
3

four-level increase in the offense level “if the defendant used or possessed any firearm or 

ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” The enhancement is warranted 

“in the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to 

drugs, drug-manufacturing materials, or drug paraphernalia . . . because the presence of 

the firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense.” § 2K2.1(b)(6) cmt. n. 

14(B). We have noted that a district court “is permitted to presume that a firearm in 

relatively close proximity to drugs is used ‘in connection’ with [a drug trafficking] 

offense.” United States v. West, 643 F.3d 102, 114 (3d Cir. 2011). We review the 

District Court’s factual findings supporting application of the enhancement for clear 

error. United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc). 

Younger argues that the Government did not prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he was involved in a drug trafficking offense when he was stopped and 

arrested. At the sentencing hearing, the Government introduced the police report 

regarding Younger’s arrest, which, like the presentence report, indicated that Younger 

possessed the firearm, the digital scale, nine ecstasy pills packaged in a clear baggie, and 

$5,695 in United States currency. The firearm, ecstasy pills, digital scale, and $1,695 

were found in or on the center console of the car; the remaining $4,000 was found in the 

glove compartment. To counter this evidence, Younger testified that he used ecstasy 

personally, and that he possessed a digital scale because he weighed marijuana that he 

purchased for personal use to ensure that he was not shorted. He also argued that the 

presence of only nine ecstasy pills is evidence of personal drug use, not distribution. To 

counter the reasonable inference that the $5,695 in cash was evidence of drug trafficking, 
4

his mother testified that she often gave Younger large sums of money; likewise, his wife 

testified that Younger took out a large amount of cash from a safe at their home on June 

21, 2007 in order to purchase a car for her that day. Younger argues that this evidence, 

taken together, establishes that he was not involved in any drug trafficking offense. 

We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in determining that 

Younger’s possession of the handgun was in connection with a felony drug trafficking 

offense. Younger’s possession of the ecstasy pills, the digital scale, and the large amount 

of cash is evidence of his involvement in a drug trafficking offense. As the fact-finder, 

the District Court was entitled to credit that evidence over Younger’s testimony and the 

testimony of his mother and wife. Moreover, the fact that the firearm was found in close 

proximity to the drugs and the digital scale supports application of the enhancement. See

2K2.1(b)(6) cmt. n. 14(B); West, 643 F.3d at 114. 

Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.