# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 13 20

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro la nd o J am al Down ey
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 16 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 29 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ro la nd o Ja m al Down ey pl ead ed gu il ty to po ss es si ng a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly

co nv ic te d fel on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t 1

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.ap pl ie d a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si n g th e fir earm “ in co nn ect io n wit h

an ot he r fel on y of

fen se ,” U.S. Sen te nc i n g G ui de li ne s Man ua l § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) , na m el y , po ss es si ng a us er qu an ti ty of m et ha m ph et am in e. Down ey arg ue s on ap pe al th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ove tha t the sub st an ce he po ss es se d was m et ha m ph et am in e
or t h a t h e p o ss es se d th e fir earm “ in co nn ect io n wit h” th e dr ug po ss es si on of fen se

.

W e rev ie w fo r cl ear err o r t h e d et erm in at io ns th at th e su bs ta nc e was

m et ha m ph et am in e an d th at Down ey po ss es se d th e fir earm “ in co nn ect io n with ” th e

m et ha m ph et am in e of

fen se

. U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 53 5 F.3 d 88 3, 88 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (cl ear erro r rev ie w of “ in co nn ect io n wit h” de te rm in at io n) . It was th e g ov ern m en t’s b ur de n a t se nt en ci ng to es ta bl is h t he fact s by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, an d we a pp ly our cle ar erro r rev ie w i n li gh t of th is st an da rd

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Hol m , 74 5 F.3 d 93 8, 94 0– 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

The reco rd sh ows of

fic ers res po nd ed aft er rece iv in g a rep or t of a ro bb ery. Down ey m at ch ed th e de sc rip ti on of th e al le ge d ro bb er an d ran fro m of fic ers

. W hi le

ru nn in g, he di sc ard ed a lo ad e d f i r e a r m

. Offi cers ev en tu al ly cap tu red an d arre st ed Down e y in pu bl ic

. W he n bo ok in g Down ey in to de te nt io n, of fic ers di sc ov ered two ba gs of su sp ect ed dr u g s in a ci ga ret te pa ck

. A fie ld te st co nf irmed th e pr es en ce of met ha m ph et am in e an d in di cat ed th e su bs ta nc e weig he d ap pr ox im at el y 0.5 gr am s

. The go ve rn m en t co nd uc te d n o a dd it io na l t es ti ng

.

Down ey do es no t de ny a fie ld te st oc cu rred

. Rat he r, he arg ue s la b te st in g was req ui red

. Fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , ho wev er, la b te st in g is no t req ui red , an d a co ur t

m ay rel y on ci rcu m s t an ti al ev id en ce su ch as fie ld te st s or te st im on y de sc rib in g th e
su bs ta nc e. See Uni te d Stat es v. Lugo , 70 2 F.3d 10 86 , 10 90 (8t h C ir. 20 13 ) (“ [T]he id en ti ty of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e can

. . . be pro ve d b y cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce an d op in io n te st im on y .” (al t e r a ti on in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ); Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ The Gui de li ne s do no t req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to es ta bl is h th e i d e n ti ty, qu an ti ty, or pu rit y of m et ha m ph et am in e by

-2

-la bo rat or y an al y si s.”)

. Down ey no te s di st ric t co u r t s a r e no t req ui red to in fer fro m

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t ha t a s ub st an ce i s a p ro hi bi te d d ru g. He fa il s, ho wev er, t o ci te au th or it y ho ld in g su ch an in fere nc e is im pe rm is si bl e. W e fin d no cl ear e rro r in th e co ur t’s i de nt ifi cat io n o f th e su bs ta nc e as m et ha m ph et am in e.
Reg ard in g th e ne xu s req ui rem en t, “ a fir earm is po ss es se d ‘in co nn ect io n wit h’

a dr ug po ss es si on fel on y if it ‘facil it at ed , or ha d th e po te nt ia l of faci li ta ti ng ’” th e dr ug po ss es si on fel on y

. Hol m , 7 45 F.3 d at 94 0 (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) an d

cm t. n.1 4( A)). “ [W] he n a dr ug us er ch oo se s to carr y il le ga l dr ug s ou t in to pu bl ic wit h a fi rear m , an ‘in co nn ect io n wi th ’ fin di ng ‘w il l rare ly b e cl earl y erro ne ou s.’” Id . at 94 0 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t vi ewed th e fir earm as em bo ld en in g,
an d th eref

or e faci li ta ti ng , Down ey in h i s c h o ic e to go ou t in to pu bl ic wit h il le ga l dr ug s. Fu rth er, th ere ex is t no m it ig at in g fact or s su ffi ci en t to sh ow clea r erro r. See, e.g ., Sm it h, 53 5 F.3 d a t 8 8 5

– 8 6 (fi nd in g an “ in co nn ect io n wit h” de te rm in at io n cl earl y erro ne ou s whe re: (1 ) th e dr ug qu an ti ty di d no t ex ceed m ere res id ue ; (2 ) th e
s u b s ta nc e an d de fen da nt were di sc ov ered in th e de fen da nt ’s ho m e; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt ha d n ot ve nt ur ed in to pu bl ic arm ed an d wi th dru gs ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-