United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2251

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Maricus Davon Futrell, also known as Rukus

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: January 13, 2023

Filed: March 27, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Maricus D. Futrell pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with 

intent to distribute more than 400 grams of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 132 months 

1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Missouri.
-2- 

in prison. He appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this 

court affirms.

Futrell argues the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement 

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous firearm. This court 

reviews findings of fact for clear error and application of the guidelines de novo. 

See United States v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2012). 

The government bears the burden of proving a sentencing enhancement. See

United States v. Peroceski, 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008). The two-level 

enhancement was proper here if “the weapon was present, unless it is clearly 

improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 

cmt. n.11. See Peroceski, 520 F.3d at 887 (holding the government must prove “the 

weapon was present and that it is at least probable that the weapon was connected 

with the offense”). This is a “low bar.” United States v. Garcia, 703 F.3d 471, 476 

(8th Cir. 2013). To a show a “connection,” the government need not show that the 

defendant used or touched the weapon. See Peroceski, 520 F.3d at 889. 

Futrell stipulated that: (1) he was a “runner” in two drug-trafficking 

conspiracies; (2) all runners in one of the conspiracies carried handguns or assault 

rifles; (3) investigators found him in the bedroom of his girlfriend, a coconspirator; 

(4) the girlfriend’s house facilitated activities of the drug-trafficking conspiracy; and 

(5) in the bedroom investigators found over $9,000 and a loaded semi-automatic 

pistol. These facts are sufficient to support the district court’s finding that it was not 

clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the drug offense. See United 

States v. Hernandez, 440 Fed. Appx. 522, 523 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that it was 

not clearly improbable that an unloaded gun hidden in an attic above defendant’s 

garage and wrapped in a bandana and electrical tape was connected with defendant’s 

drug offense); United States v. Dunning, 1997 WL 415241, at *1 (8th Cir. Jul. 25, 

1997) (finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that it was not 

clearly improbable that a revolver found in a closet with the drugs and cash was 
-3- 

connected with the offense even though defendant professed a lack of knowledge as 

to its presence). The court did not err in applying the enhancement.

* * * * * * * *

 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________