T h e H o n o rab le W il li am K
. S essio n s III, C h ief Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt * forthe D i s tr i ctof V erm ont , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. No . 09-2019-cr Unit e d S tate s v . Go o dwin 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E DE NT I AL E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY O RDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M E N T F I L ED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE 10 E I T H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X O R A N E L E C T R O N I C D A T A B A S E ( WI T H T H E N O T A T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew 1 6 Y or k, on the 9 dayof Sept ember , tw o thous and t en. th 17 P RE S E NT : J OS E P H M
. M c L AUGHL I N, 18 1 9 GERARD E. LYNCH 20 C i r cui tJudges , 2 1 W I LLI A M K
. SESSI O N S, 22 D is tr i ct Judge. * 23

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 25 2 6 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , 27 28 v. N o. 09- 2019- cr 29 30 T I M O T H Y G O O D W I N , al s o know n as T ech, 31 al s o know n as T ex, 32 D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 33 34 35
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 36 3 7 FO R A PPE L L A N T : J
. Scot tPor t er , Seneca Fal l s , N ew Y or k. 38 3 9 FO R A PPELL EE: Br e nd a K
. Sa nn e s , A s s i s t a ntU ni t e d St a t e s A t t orne y( K e vi n P. 4 0 D o o ley , A ssist an t U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y , o n the b ri ef ) f or 4 1 R icha rd S
. H artun ian, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yfo r th e N o rth ern2 1 D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk , S yra c u s e , N e w Y o rk
. 2 3 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct o f N ew Y o rk 4 (T h o m a s J . M c A v o y , Seni orJudge ). 5 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND 6 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is V A C A T E D a n d R E M A N D E D
. 7 T i m othyG oodw i n appea l s fr om cons ecut i ve s ent ence s of 120 m onths i n pr i s on 8 im p o s e d f

o r p o s s e s s io n o f

m a ri ju a n a w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), an d 3 0 m o n th s in p riso n f o r b e in g a f

e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm , in 1 0 vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1)
. W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the r el evant 1 1 f a c ts a n d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se , an d th e iss u e s p re se n ted o n th is a p p e a l. 1 2 G o o d w in ’s c o n v ictio n ste m s f ro m a th re a t h e m a d e to “ b u st [ Ja n ice R o b in so n ] in 1 3 the fa ce w i th [hi s ] gun” forgett i ng i nvol ved i n hi s “bus i nes s . ” Thatthr eatl ed R obi ns on 1 4 to c a ll th e p o lic e a n d re p o rt th a t G o o d w in w a s a d ru g d e a le r w h o p o s s e s s e d a g u n . 1 5 P u rsu a n t to a w a rra n t, th e p o lice se a rc h e d th e a p a rtm e n t o f E d ith E lli s, w h e re G o o d w in 1 6 w as al l egedl yl i vi ng, and found mar i j uana a nd m ar i

j uana pa ckagi ng m at er i al s bel ongi ng 1 7 t o G oodw i n. T he gun, how ever , w as notfound atE l l i s ’ s apart m ent . R obi ns on r ecove r ed 1 8 the gun ata s epar at e r es i dence w her e G oodw i n had s t as hed i t , and turned i tovert o the 1 9 pol i ce. 2 0 O n t hi s appea l , G oodw i n chal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of a f our - l evel 2 1 s ent enci ng enhanc ementforpos s es s i ng a fi r earm “i n connec t i on w i th” anotherfel ony 2 2 o f

f e n s e , i
. e. , hi s m ar i

j uana di s tr i but i on, pur s uantt o U
. S. S. G
. § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6)
. Sect i on3 1 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes pr ovi des fors uch an e nhance m ent“[i ] f the 2 defe ndantus ed orpos s es s ed anyfi r earm oramm uni t i on i n connec t i on w i th anotherfel ony 3 offe ns e. ” The C om m ent aryt o t hi s G ui del i ne pr ovi s i on addr es s es the “i n connec t i on 4 w ith ” sta n d a rd , sta tin g th a t: 5 ( A ) I n G ener al
. – Subse ct i on[] ( b) ( 6)
. . . appl [i es ] i f the 6 fi r earm oramm uni t i on fac i l i t at ed, orhad the pot ent i al of 7 f

a c ilita tin g , a n o th e r f

e lo n yo f f e n s e . . . . 8 9 ( B ) A ppl i cat i on W hen O therO ffe ns e i s B ur gl aryorD rug 1 0 O ffe ns e. – Subse ct i on[] ( b) ( 6)
. . . appl [i es ]
. . . i n the ca s e of a 1 1 drug tr afficki ng off ense i n w hich a f

ire a rm i s foun d in cl ose 1 2 pr ox im it yt o drugs , drug- m anufa ctur i ng m at er i al s , ordrug 1 3 par aphernal i a. I n th[i s ] cas e[] , appl i cat i on of s ubs ect i on[] ( b) ( 6) 1 4
. . . i s w arr ant ed bec aus e the pr es ence of the fi rea r m has the 1 5 p o te n tia l o f f a c ilita tin g a n o th e r f

e lo n yo f f e n s e . . . . 16 1 7 U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 , cm t. n. 1 4 . W e h a v e a d o p ted th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s a p p ro a c h to th e “ in 1 8 connec t i on w i th” s t andar d t hat“[s ] o l ong as the governm entpr oves bya pr eponder ance 1 9 of the evi dence thatthe fi r earm s erved s om e purpos e w i th r es pectt o the fe l oni ous 2 0 c o n d u c t , s e c t i o n 2 K 2
. 1 ( b ) ( [ 6 ] ) ’ s ‘ i n c o n n e c t i o n w i th ’ r e q u i r e m e n ti s s a t i s f i e d ; c o n v e r s e l y, 2 1 w her e the fi r earm ’ s pr es ence i s m er el ycoi nci dent al t o thatconduct , the r equi r ementi s not 2 2 m et . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Spur geon, 117 F. 3d 641, 644 ( 2d C i r . 1997) , quot i ng U ni t ed St at es 2 3 v . W y a tt, 1 0 2 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 7 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 2 4 T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o concl ude that 2 5 G oodw i n pos s es s ed the fi r earm “i n connec t i on w i th” hi s drug deal i ng and thatthe 2 6 enhanc ementther efor e appl i ed. I tbas ed thi s concl us i on pr i nci pal l yon the fi ndi ng that 2 7 G o o d w in “ tele p h o n e d [ R o b in so n ] re g a rd in g h is ‘b u sin e ss ’ (w h ich th e C o u rt b e liev e d to4 1 refer ence h i s drug de al i ng bu si ness) and threat ened t o assaul ther w i th the gun
. ” B ecause 2 “ [ t]h e e v id e n c e e sta b lish e d th a t D e f e n d a n t m a d e th re a ts o f

a ss a u lti n g a n in d iv id u a l w ith 3 the fi r earm i n r el at i on t o hi s i l l egal drug bus i nes s . . . [, ] [t ] he r eas onabl e i nfer ence t o be 4 d ra w n f

ro m th is is th a t D e f

e n d a n t u se d a n d /o r p o ss e ss e d a f ire a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith 5 d ru g d e a lin g .” 6 7 T he governm entconce des thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr oneous l ybas ed i t s rul i ng on a 8 fac tnots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, namel y , thatG oodw i n us ed the gun t o thr eat en R obi ns on 9 w i th r es pectt o hi s drug tr aff i cki ng “bus i nes s . ” R obi ns on t es t i fi ed thatG oodw i n w as 1 0 r efe rr i ng t o hi s per s onal “bus i nes s , ” and thatG oodw i n thr eat ened he rbeca us e he be l i eved 1 1 R o b in so n h a d to ld h is g irlfr ien d th a t h e w a s b e in g u n f a ith f u l. 1 2 B eca us e the courtr el i ed on a f actnots uppor t ed byr ecor d evi dence i n appl y i ng t he 1 3 enhanc ement , the governm entconce des thatthe s ent ence m us tbe vac at ed, butar gues t hat 1 4 w e s houl d r emand t he ca s e t o al l ow the di s tr i ctcourtt o r econs i derthe i s s ue i n l i ghtof the 1 5 actual evi dence
. G oodw i n, how ever , ar gues thatther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the 1 6 re c o rd to su p p o rt th e e n h a n c e m e n t, an d th a t w e th e re f o re sh o u ld d ire c t th e d istric t co u rt to 1 7 r es ent ence hi m w i thouti ncl udi ng the four
- l evel fi r earm enhanc ement . W e fi nd thatan 1 8 open- ended r emand i s appr opr i at e bec aus e the fa ct s r el at i ng t o w hetherthe enha ncement 1 9 m igh t app lyare u n clea r. 2 0 T he governm entar gues thatther e ar e ampl e fa ct s i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tappl y i ng 2 1 the enha ncement . I tar gues thatG oodw i n l i ved atE l l i s ’ s apart m entw her e he s t or ed and 2 2 s ol d m ar i

j uana, and that , w hi l e the gun w as notfound i n E l l i s ’ s apart m entw hen the5 1 pol i ce s ear ched i t , ther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatG oodw i n pr evi ous l ypos s es s ed the 2 gun atthe apa r t m ent . T he governm ental s o s t at es thatG oodw i n, w ho al l egedl ym ade a 3 liv in g a s a d ru g d e a ler , fr e q u e n tlyc a rrie d th e g u n a n d m a d e a p o in t o f sh o w in g it t o 4 other s . I tar gues thatthes e fa ct s es t abl i s h thatthe gun had the pot ent i al t o pr ot ector 5 o therw ise fa cil it ate G o o d w in’s m arij u an a traff ickin g , an d that the e n h an ce m en t th ere fo re 6 s h o u l d a p p l y. 7 G oodw i n di s put es m os tof thes e fa ctual as s ert i ons . H e ar gues thathe l i ved att he 8 h o m e o f

h is g irlfr ien d , T ia L a w re n c e , n o t at E lli s’s a p a rtm e n t, an d h e m a in tain s th a t, 9 co n tr a the g o v ern m en t’ s claim s, there is no ev iden ce that h e so ld m arij u an a f rom E ll is’ s 1 0 apart m ent , thathe eve rpos s es s ed orcarr i ed the gun w hen he s ol d m ar i j uana, orthathe 1 1 s ol d anydrugs atal l dur i ng the tw o w eeks he pos s es s ed the gun. G oodw i n emphasi zes 1 2 that , unl i ke othercas es w her e w e have uphel d appl i cat i on of the enha ncement , the gun 1 3 w a s f

o u n d n o t “ in c lo s e p ro x im ity” to th e d ru g s , b u t a t a n e n tir e ly se p a ra te re s id e n c e . 1 4 G o o d w in c o n ten d s th a t b e c a u se th e m e re sim u ltan e o u s p o ss e ss io n o f a g u n w h ile 1 5 pos s es s i ng m ar i j uana w i th t he i nt entt o di s tr i but e i s nots uffi ci entt o appl ythe 1 6 enhanc ement , and bec aus e ther e w as no di r ectevi dence thatG oodw i n us ed the gun, or 1 7 pl anned t o us e the gun i n anyw ayconnec t ed t o hi s drug tr aff i cki ng, ther e i s i ns uffi ci ent 1 8 e v id e n c e to im p o s e th e e n h a n c e m e n t. 1 9 T hus , the part i es di s put e numer ous fac tual i s s ues . I f the di s tr i ctcourtw er e t o fi nd 2 0 a ll th e f

a c ts th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s h a v e b e e n e sta b lish e d , the c a se w o u ld p re se n t a 2 1 cl os e ca l l as t o w hetherthe enha ncementcoul d be j us t i fi ed. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. L as ant a,6 1 978 F. 2d 1300, 1309 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng thatconvi ct i on under18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) 2 forcarry i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and “i n r el at i on t o” a drug- tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, the s t andar d for 3 w hi ch i s the equi val entof the “i n connec t i on w i th” s t andar d, w as nots us t ai nabl e “a ny 4 t i m e a c ons pi r at orcarr i ed a gun dur i ng the cour s e of a cons pi r acy ”) , abr ogat ed on other 5 gr ounds byFl or i da v. W hi t e, 526 U
. S. 559 ( 1999) ; buts ee Spur geon, 117 F. 3d at644 6 ( fi ndi ng “i n connec t i on w i th” s t andar d s at i s fi ed w her e ther e w as pr oof thatdefe ndantw as 7 i nvol ved i n a cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e nar cot i cs , an as s aul tw eapon w as found i n a bag 8 w i th a s cal e w i th coca i ne r es i due on i t , and the def endanthad as s ert ed he ha d the w eapon 9 forpr ot ect i on)
. B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on the err oneous fi ndi ng r egar di ng 1 0 G oodw i n’ s “bus i nes s ” i n appl y i ng the enha ncement , w e ca nnotknow how the di s tr i ct 1 1 courtw oul d r es ol ve the di s put ed fa ctual i s s ues , orw hetheri tw oul d fi nd thatthe 1 2 e n h a n c e m e n t is w a rr a n te d o n w h a te v e r f a c ts it f o u n d
. 1 3 B eca us e w e do notknow w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw oul d appl ythe enha ncement 1 4 abs entthe err oneous fac tual fi ndi ng i tr el i ed on, and, beca us e the fa ct s i n di s put e have not 1 5 been f

ound bythe di s tr i ctcourt , w e r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtt o r eas s es s w hetherthe 1 6 enhanc ementi s j us t i fi ed w i thoutr el y i ng on the err oneous fi ndi ng thatG oodw i n had us ed 1 7 the g un t o thr eat en a p ers on i n co nn ect i on w i th h i s drug t raffi cking bu si ness. 1 8 Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourti s V A C A T E D and the 1 9 m a tter is R E M A N D E D to th e d istric t co u rt f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s n o t in c o n sis ten t w ith 2 0 th is O rd e r. 2 1 FOR TH E CO UR T:7 1 C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lfe, C lerk o f C o u rt 2 3 4