T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding pr ece dent , exceptunderthe doctrines of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d icata, an dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm ayb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas ive value cons i s t entw ith Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C ir . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED United State s C ourt o f Appe als Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e20,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. T ONY R AY F E RG US ON, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5067 (N .D . O k la .) ( D. Ct . No . 0 4 - CR- 1 7 7 - C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es.

A ft er exami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y t hat or al ar gum ent w oul d not m at er i al l yas s i s t i n t he det er m i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T o n y R ay F erg u so n p led g u il tyto b eing a felon in p o sses sion o f a firearm and amm uni t i on. H i s couns el fi l ed a br i ef pur s uant t o A nders v. C al i f or ni a and aA nders h o lds “ if co un sel find s [h erc li ent’ s] ca se to b e w h o llyfrivo lou s, af ter a 1 cons ci enti ous exami nati on of it , [s ] he s houl d s o advi s e the courtand reques tperm i s s i on to w ith draw .” 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 . C o un se l mu st s ub m it to b o thth e c o urt an d[ h e r]c lien t a “bri ef refe rring to anything in the record thatm i ghtarguablys upportthe appe al . ” I d. T he cl i entm aythen “rai s e anypoint s [] he choos es . ” Id. T hereaft er, the co urtm ust com pletelyexam ine allthe p roceedings to d et erm ine the frivo l ityof the app eal . “If itso finds i tm aygr antcouns el ’ s r eques tto w ithdr aw and di s m i s s the appe al. . . . [I ] f itfinds anyof the l egalpoint s arguabl e on theirm erit s ( and therefore notfrivol ous ) itm us t , pri or to deci s i on, aff

ord the indi gentthe as s i s t anceof couns elto argue the appe al . ” I d. T ra ckw ellv. U

n itedStates G o v’t , 4 7 2 F . 3 d1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( pro se 2 pl eadings and pape r s are l iberal lycons trued and he l d to a l es s s tringents t andard than tho se draf

ted b yatto rne y s).

- 2- m ot i on for l eave t o w i t hdr aw as couns el . 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . I n her br i ef, 1 c o u n se l id e n tifie d n o n o n -f riv o lo u s is su e s fo r a p p e a l; t h e b rie f w a s g iv e n to Fer gus on. Fer gus on di d not fi l e a r es pons i ve br i ef. H ow ever , he di d announce hi s pos i t i on i n a mot i on t o ext end t he t i m e forfi l i ng, w hi ch w e w i l l cons t r ue as his res po nse t o co un sel ’s A nd ers br i ef. I n hi s r es pons e, Fer gus on ar gues t he 2 di s t r i ct cour t i m pr oper l y enhanc ed hi s s ent ence under U SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) for pos s es s i ng a fi r ear m “i n connec t i on w i t h” anot her fel onyoffe ns e. T he go vernm ent r espon ded t o co un sel ’s A nd ers b ri e f a n d F e rg u s o n ’s re s p o n s iv e b ri e f. A ft er t hor ough exami nat i on of t he r ecor d, w e agr ee w i t h Fer gus on’ s couns el t hat n o n o n - f

r i v o l o u s g r o u n d s fo r a p p e a l a p p e a r o n t h i s r e c o r d . T h e r e fo r e , we G R A N T c o u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. B ackgr ound In Ju n e a n d Ju ly2 0 0 4 , A g e n t Jo sh u a P e tre e a rra n g e d fo r a re liab le confi dent i al i nfor m ant t o pur chas e cr ack c ocai ne fr om Fer gus on. D ur i ng oneFergus on w as s entence d pur s uantto the 2004 editi on of the U nit ed St ates 3 S e nten c in g C o m m iss io nG u id e lin e s M anu a l. A ll citatio n s to th e g u id e lin e s inth is o p in io nre f

e r t o th e 2 0 0 4 g u id e lin e s un le s s o th e rw is e in d ic ate d .

- 3- m eet i ng bet w een t he conf i dent i al i nfor m ant and Fer gus on, t he i nfor m ant not ed F e r g u s o n s t o r e d a s e m i - a u t o m a t i c p i s t o l i n a d r e s s e r b y h i s b e d . S u b s e q u e n t l y, P e tre e so u g h t an d o b tain e d a se a rc h w a rra n t fo r F e rg u so n ’s r e sid e n c e . O n Ju ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , l a w e n fo r c e me n t o ffi c e r s e x e c u t e d t h e wa r r a n t . I n F e r g u s o n ’ s b e d r o o m, th e yd isc o v e re d c ra c k c o c a in e in a tra sh c a n n e x t to F e rg u so n ’s b e d , a s e m iaut om at i c pi s t ol i n a l aundr y bas ket next t o hi s bed, t w o s et s of di gi t al s cal es on t op of hi s dr es s er and amm uni t i on. T heyal s o found a s et of di gi t al s cal es i n t he ki t chen a nd amm uni t i on t hr oughout t he hous e. A ft er t he s ear ch, Pet r ee i nt er vi ew ed Fer gus on’ s ex- gi r l fr i end, w ho w as at t he r es i dence at t he t i m e of t he s ear ch. She pr ovi ded a w r i t t en s t at ement i n w hi ch s he deni ed pos s es s i ng t he gun and dr ugs found i n t he home. O n N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 4 , F e rg u so n w a s in d icte d w ith b e in g a fe lo n in pos s es s i on of a f

i r ear m and amm uni t i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) a n d 9 2 4 (a )(2 ). O n A u g u st 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , h e p led g u ilt yto th e in d ictm e n t. P u rsu a n t to U SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) , Fer gus on’ s pr es ent ence r epor t ( PSR ) r ecomm ended a 4 l evel e n h a n c e m e n t to h is b a se o ffe n se lev e l o f 2 0 b e c a u se a fire a rm w a s u se d in connec t i on w i t h t he fe l onyoffe ns e of pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance . T he 3 P S R a l s o r e c o m m e n d e d s u b t r a c t i n g 3 l e v e l s fo r a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y,- 4-

r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21. W i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egor yof V , t he g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s 7 0 -8 7 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. A t Fer gus on’ s i ni t i al s ent enci ng hear i ng, Fer gus on’ s ex- gi r l fr i end w as sc h e d u led to tes tify . S h e a lleg e d lyw a s g o in g to tes tify th a t th e d ru g s fo u n d in Fer gus on’ s hom e w er e her s and di d not bel ong t o Fer gus on, t her ebyr efut i ng t he appl i cat i on of t he U SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) enhanc ement . H er at t or neyappea r ed in ste a d a n d e x p lain e d sh e w o u ld n o t b e tes tify in g . T h e h e a rin g w a s c o n tin u e d to a llo w F e rg u so n a n o p p o rtu n ityto su b p o e n a h e r; F e rg u so n ’s s u b se q u e n t atte m p ts to su b p o e n a h e r w e re u n su c c e ss f u l. O n Febr uar y 13, 2006, Fer gus on r eappe ar ed fors ent enci ng. A t t he hea r i ng, t he cour t r ece i ved evi dence t o det er m i ne w het her t he §2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) enhanc ement a p p lied . P e tre e tes tifie d c o n c e rn in g th e c o n tro lled b u y s a n d th e item s fo u n d in Fer gus on’ s bedr oom . W hen as ked byt he di s t r i ct cour t w het her he had a ny t hi ng t o s aypr i or t o s ent enci ng, Fer gus on s t at ed hi s at t or neyw as i n pos s es s i on of an affid av itfro m h is ex -girl frien d stat ing the d rug s b elon g ed to h er. I f th e c o u rt cons i der ed t hi s document , he ar gued i t w oul d concl ude hi s fi r ear m pos s es s i on w as not i n connec t i on w i t h anydr ug offe ns e. T he cour t not ed t he document w as not i nt r oduced a s evi dence . T hus , t her e w as no evi dence befor e t he cour t s uppor t i ng Fer gus on’ s al l egat i ons . B as ed on Pet r ee’ s t es t i m ony , t he cour t found a 4 l evel i ncr eas e under§2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) w as appr opr i at e and s ent ence d Fer gus on t o 87 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t.- 5- D i s cus s i on Fer gus on cl ai m s t he di s t r i ct cour t i m pr oper l yenhanc ed hi s s ent ence under U SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 1) . I n deci di ng “w het her t he di s t r i ct cour t pr oper l yappl i ed t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes, [w e] r eview [] i t s l egal conclusi on s de novo and i t s fac t ual fi ndi ngs for cl earer r or . ” Uni t ed St at es v. F ons eca , 4 7 3 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Sect i on 2K 2. 1( b) ( 1) of t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes pr ovi des for a fourl evel i ncr eas e i n t he bas e offens e l evel “[i ] f t he defendantus ed or pos s es s ed any fi r ear m or amm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i t h anot her fel onyoffe ns e. ” “The gover nm ent m us t s uppor t t he ‘ i n connec t i on w i t h’ el ement of t he enha ncement o ffe n s e w ith a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e .” Unit ed S t ates v. G om ezA r r el l ano , 5 F .3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). “[ A ] w e a p o n ’s p ro x im ityto nar cot i cs m aybe s uffi ci ent t o pr ovi de t he nexus nece s s ar yt o enhanc e a defe ndant ’ s s ent ence under § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . ” Uni t ed St at es v. B unner , 134 F. 3d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). Fer gus on compl ai ns hi s pos s es s i on of t he fi r ear m w as not i n connec t i on w ith a n yo th e r c rim e o r o ffe n se . H e a rg u e s h is e x -g irlfr ien d ’s a ffid a v it sh o u ld have be en cons i der ed t o s how t he enha ncement w as not appl i cabl e. I n es s ence , F e rg u so n a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d a n a ffid a v it n o t inFergus on’ s attorneydi d notaddres s Fergus on’ s cl aimof an a ffi davit , eitherin the 4 d istri ct co urto r inh er A nders bri ef. T he record s ugges t s the ex- girl fri end gave F erg u so n ’s atto rne yso m e so rto f statem en t, b ut do es n o t in d icate the stat em en t’ s s ubs t ance . A s s um ing Fergus on truthful lydes cribed the content s of the s t atement , the fai lur e to admi titas evi dence , i f any , l i es atthe footof couns el . T o the extentFergus on m ayhav e an argu able cl aim of ineffective assi stance o f counsel , such a c l aimi s best c o n s id e re do nc o llate ra l r e v ie w . U ni ted Statesv. G allow ay , 56 F. 3d 1239, 1240 ( 1995) ( en banc ).

- 6- ev iden ce . T h e d ist ri ct co u rt ca n n o t b e fa u lt ed fo r su ch fa il u re. U n d er B unner , 4 Pet r ee’ s t es t i m ony , w hi ch demonst r at ed t he pr oxi m i t ybet w een t he dr ugs and fi r e a r m / a m m u n i t i o n i n F e r g u s o n ’ s b e d r o o m , w a s s u ffi c i e n t t o p r o v e b y a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence Fer gus on us ed or pos s es s ed t he fi r ear m and amm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i t h t he fe l onyoffe ns e of drug pos s es s i on. T he di s t r i ct cour t di d not er r i n appl y i ng t he enha ncement . T hus , Fer gus on has iden ti fied n o n o n -frivo lou s issue s fo r us to co n side r. W e G R A N T c o u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge