# United States Court of A ppe als Fo r the Eighth Circuit

___________________________
No. 1 5-3309

___________________________
Unit ed Sta te s of Am eri ca

Plai nti ff – App el le e

v.
Ty rel l Grim es

De fe ndan t – Appe lla nt

____ ____ ____ Appe al from

Uni te d Sta te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the South ern Dist

ric t of Iow a

____ ____ ____ Subm itt ed : Ap ril 1 3, 20 16 File d: J une 14, 2016

____ ____ ____
Be fore C OLLOTO N a

nd GR UENDER , C irc uit

Jud ge s, a nd B OUGH, Dis tric t

1 Judg e.

____ ____ ____ _

BOU GH, Di stri ct

Jud ge

.

A jury co nvi ct ed Ty

rel l Grim es of two co unt s: Co unt I - poss es si ng an

unre gi st ere d firea

rm in vio la tio n of 26 U.S.C

. §§ 5841
, 5861 (d), an d 5871
, an d
Co unt IV - be ing a fel on in poss es sio n of a firea rm in vio la tio n of 18 U.S.C

. §§ 922(g ) ( 1) an d 924(a)(2). The jury found Grim es not gui lty on Co unt II

- poss es sin g a firea

rm wit h se ria l num

be r rem ove d in vio la tio n of 18 U .S.C. §

The Hono rabl e Ste phe n R. Bo ugh, Unit ed Sta te s Dist ric t Judg e for the W es te rn 1 Dist ric t of M iss ouri, sit

tin g by de sig na tio n.922(k). Grim es wa s se nte nc ed to nin ety -two m ont hs im priso nm en t on Co unt s I

an d IV, to be se r ve d co ncurrent ly

. Grim es co nte nds tha t the ev ide nc e wa s ins uf f ic ie nt to supp ort the jury ve rdic t, an d the dis tric t co urt erre d in de ny ing 2
Grim es ’s m oti on for jud gm en t of ac qui tta l. Grim es f ur th er conte nds the dis tric t

co urt erre d in ap ply ing a four-le ve l se ntenc ing en ha nc em en t unde r U.S. Sent en ci ng Guid el ine s M an

ua l § 2K2.1 (b)(4)(B). For th e rea sons dis cu sse d be low, we a ffirm

.

I.

W e sta te the fac ts in the lig ht m ost favo rab le to the jury ’s ve rdic t. On
Oc tob er 29, 2014
, a f

ou r

- co unt Indic tm en t wa s file d ag ai nst Grim es an d his co

de fend an t, Ke vin La m ike Je nki ns, Jr. The Indictm en t res ult ed from an inv es tig at io n of Je nki ns by the Bu rea u of Alc ohol
, Toba cc o, an d Firea rm s. An

em plo y ee of a firea

rm s r et ai le r not ifie d ATF tha t Je nki ns, a sus pe ct ed “ stra w
purc ha se r,” wa s at

te m pti ng to purc ha se firea

rm s. A s a r es ult
, an ATF ag en t posi ng unde rcov er arra

nge d to m ee t Je nki ns to dis cu ss an d ne go ti at e Je nki ns’ s purc ha se of firea rm s from the a ge nt, spe ci fic al ly

firea rm s wi th s eri al num

be rs rem ove d.

On Oc tob er 1, 2014
, Je nki ns an d the ag en t m et in pe rson to di sc uss the pot en tia l firea

rm tra nsa ct ion

. The ag ent sh owed Je nki ns pic ture s of firea rm s on his phone, an d the two dis cu sse d spe ci fic firea rm s an d pric es , al tho ugh no de al was

co m ple te d. During the m ee tin g Je nki ns ha d multi ple phon e co nve rsa tio ns wit h Grim es , an d at one po in t, Jenki ns pla ce d Grim es on spe ak er phon e so tha t Grim es

co uld as k the ag en t se ve ral que sti ons ab out the firea rm s. Je nki ns sta

te d his int en t
to pu r ch as e firea

rm s for him se lf an d his int en t to purc ha se ad dit ion al firea rm s on Grim es ’s be ha lf. Je nki ns co nfirm ed at tria l tha t Grim es w as the pe rson on whos e be ha lf Je nki ns ne got ia te d the firea rm s purc ha se

. Je nki ns an d Grim es m et la te r the

sa m e da y , an d Je nki ns show ed Grim es the firea rm pic ture s from the ag en t. Grim es tol d Je nki ns h e wa nte d to m ee t wi th t he a ge nt t o bu

y firea rm s.

The Hono rabl e Lind a R. Reade
, Ch ief Unit ed Sta te s Dist ric t Judg e for the 2 Northe rn Dis tric t of Iow a.

-2-Je nkins an d the ag en t ag ree d to m ee t two da y s la te r to co m

ple te the de al

. On
Oc tob er 3, Je nki ns inform ed Grim es th at th ey we re goi ng to m ee t the ag en t to

co m ple te the firea

rm tra nsa ct io n. Je nki ns, Grim es , an d a thi rd ind ivi dua l arriv ed in

an SUV an d pul le d al ongs ide the ag en t’ s truc k. W ith the SUV pa rked onl y thre e to four fee t from his truc k, the ag en t sa w Grim es ha

nd Je nki ns a wa d of cash

. Je nki ns
te sti fie d tha t Grim es ga ve him ca sh to pa y for a m ac hin e gun an d a 9 mm

. pi st ol

. Je nki ns ex ite d the SUV an d go t in the front se at of the ag en t’ s truc k whe re the

ag en t show ed Je nkin s se ve ral firea rm s. Je nki ns ga ve the ag en t m one y , an d the

ag en t pla ce d the 9 m

m

. pis tol an d the m ac hin e gu n in a pa pe r ba g be fore pla ci ng the ba g on the floor of the ve hic le be twe en Je nki ns’ s le gs. The ag en t exite d the

truc k, an d ATF ag en ts arre ste d Je nki ns, Grim es , an d the SUV dr iv er

. Th e ag en ts

reco ve red the 9 m

m

. pis tol
, whic h ha d an obl ite rat ed se ria l num be r, an d the

m ac hin e gun from the truc k. During the en tire ty of the tra nsa ct ion
, Grim es sa t in the SUV a few fee t aw ay from the ag en t’ s truc k. At the tim e of the se ev en ts, Grim es ha d prio r felo ny

c onvi ct ion s.

II.

“ W e revi ew the suffic ie nc y of the ev ide nc e de novo, vi ew ing ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost favo rabl e to the gove rnm en t, res olv ing co nflic ts in the gove rnm en t’ s favo r an d ac ce pti ng al l rea sona ble infe renc es tha t supp ort the ve rdic t.” Unit ed
Sta te s v. W as hin gto n, 318 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Ci r. 2003 ) (ci ta tio n om itted )

. “Th is

sta nda rd of revi ew is stri ct ; we will up ho ld th e ve rdic t if the re is an y int erpre ta tio n of the ev ide nce that co uld le ad a rea sona ble -m ind ed jury to find the de fend an t gui lty be y ond a r easo na

ble doub t.” Unit ed Sta te s v. Ha m ilt on, 332 F.3d 1144
, 1149 (8th Ci r. 2003) ( ci ti ng Unit ed Sta te s v. Gil lin gs, 156 F.3d 857, 860 (8th Ci r. 1998 )).

The pa rtie s ag ree d an d th e jury wa s ins truc te d tha t to co nvi ct Grim es on Co unt s I an d IV the Gove rnm en t ha d to prove Grim es know ing ly poss es se d a firea rm

. The pa r ti es f

ur the r ag ree d an d the jury wa s ins truc te d tha t to co nvi ct Grim es on Co unt I the Gove rnm en t ha d to prove Grim es kne w the m ac hin e gun

-3-w as a m ac hin e gun an d an au tom at ic firea

rm

. Grim es argu es on ap pe al tha t the

ev ide nc e wa s ins uff

ic ie nt f or the jury to find an y of the co nte ste d el em en ts we re

es ta bli she d.

Knowi ng poss es sio n m ay be ac tua l or co ns tr uc tiv e. Ha m ilt on, 332 F.3d at 1150

. Th e G ov er nm en t’ s ca se ag ai nst Grim es wa s ba se d on co nst ruct ive

poss es sio n. “ Co nst

ruct ive poss es sio n requ ire s tha t th e defend an t ha s dom ini on

ove r the prem ise s whe r e the firea rm is loc at ed
, or co ntrol
, owne rship
, or dom ini on

ove r the firea

rm its el f

. Co nst

ruct ive poss es sio n m ay be es ta bli she d by ci rcum sta nti al ev ide nc e al one , but the gove rnm en t m ust show a suffic ie nt ne xus be twe en the de fend an t an d th e f ir ea rm .” Unit ed Sta te s v. Ga rrett , 648 F.3d 618,
622 (8th Ci r. 2011 ) (quot ing Unit ed S ta tes v. Eva ns, 431 F.3d 342, 345 (8th Ci r. 2005 )) (inte rnal ci ta

tio ns an d quot at ion mar ks om itt ed ). “ Co nst ruct ive poss es sio n ‘re qui r es kn ow le dge of an obj ec t, the ab ili ty to co ntrol it, an d the int en t to do so.’ ” Unit ed Sta te s v. Piwowa r, 492 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quot ing Unit ed
Sta te s v. Cu ev as -Arrendo ndo, 469 F.3d 7 12, 7 15 (8t h C ir. 20 06)).

The Gove rnm en t pres en te d suffic ie nt ev id en ce to pe rm it the jury to find be y ond a rea sona

ble doub t tha t Grim es know ing ly pos se sse d firea rm s an d kne w the m ac hin e gun wa s a m ac hin e gun an d an au tom at ic f ir earm

. Je nki ns te sti fie d
tha t Grim es kn ew on O ct obe r 3 tha t the y we re goi ng to m ee t the ag en t to buy firea rm s. Due to the cl ose proxi m ity of the ve hic le s, the ag en t sa w Grim es ha

nd
Je nki ns m one y

. Je nki ns te sti fie d Grim es ga ve him m one y to pa y f or a m ac hin e
gun an d a 9 m

m

. pis tol
, an d Je nki ns te sti fie d he boug ht the machi ne gun an d 9 m m

. pis tol on Grim es ’s be ha lf. Grim es sa t in the SUV a few fee t from the ag en t’ s truc k durin g the en tire tra

nsa ct ion

. At a m ini m

um , the ev ide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to

es ta bli sh tha t Grim es kne w the ag en t ga ve Je nki ns the firea

rm s in ex ch an ge for

m one y an d tha t Grim es owne d the m ac hin e gun an d 9 m m

. pisto l. W hil e Grim es subm itt ed ev ide nc e in supp ort of his sto ry tha t he tho ught the m ee tin g wit h the

ag en t wa s f

or th e pu r pose of buy ing m ari jua na , the jury wa s en tit le d to dis rega rd
thi s ev ide nc e in favo r of Je nki ns’ s an d the ag en t’ s te sti m ony

. See Unit ed Sta te s v.

-4-Jone s, 559 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Ci r. 2009 ) (hold ing it is w it hi n the jury ’s purvi ew to

res olv e co nflic tin g te sti m ony ).

III.

Grim es ch al le nge s his 92-m ont h, co nc urrent se nte nc es in two wa y s. First, Grim es argu es the dis tric t co urt err ed in ap ply ing the four-le ve l se nte nc ing

en ha nc em en t in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4)(B) be caus e doi ng so co ntra dic te d the ju r y ’s ve rdic t ac qui tti ng him on Co unt II. Sec ond, Grim es argu es tha t the dis tr ic t

co urt ab us ed its dis cre tio n by im posi ng a se nte nc e grea

te r tha n ne ce ssa

ry to

co m ply wit h 18 U.S.C . § 3 553(a ).

“ W e revi ew the dis tric t co urt’ s int erpre ta tio n of the gu id eline s de novo [.]” Unit ed Sta te s v. Howa

rd, 759 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Ci r. 2014 ). W e co nside r the
im posi tio n of a se nte nc e first for proc ed ural er r or r ev iewin g the dis tric t co urt’ s findi ngs of fac t for cl ea

r error an d it s ap pli ca

tio n of the gui de lin es to tho se fac ts de

novo

. Unit ed Sta te s v. Ca sti llo
, 713 F.3d 407, 411 (8th Ci r. 2013 ). “ If the re wa s

no proc ed

ural error, we the n co ns id er the subs ta nti ve rea sona

ble ne ss of the

se nte nc e im

pos ed un der an ab use -of-disc ret ion sta nda rd.” Id. (quot ing Unit ed
Sta te s v. Feemst er , 57 2 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Ci r. 2009 )) (inte rnal quot at ion m arks

om itt ed ). “ A dis tric t co urt ab use s its dis cre tio n whe n it (1) fai ls to co nsi de r a rel ev an t fac to r tha t shou ld ha ve rec ei ve d sig nific an t we igh t; (2) giv es sig nific an t

we igh t to an im

prope r or irrel ev an t fac tor; or (3) co nside rs onl y the ap propria te fac tors but in we igh ing tho se fac tors co m m its a cl ea

r error of ju dgm en t.” Id. at 412 (quot ing Fee m ste r, 572 F.3d a t 46 1) (int erna l qu ota tio n m arks om itt ed ).

Grim es co nc ed es the dis tric t co urt co rrec tly ca lc ula te d hi s base offens e le ve l.
G r imes furthe r co nc ed es the 9 m m

. pis tol ha d an obl ite rat ed se ria l num be r, but he

argu es U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4)(B)’s en hanc em en t shou ld not ap ply be ca use inh ere nt in the jury ’s ve rdic t ac qui tti ng him on Co un t I I wa s the findi ng tha t he ha d

no know le dge of the obl ite rat ed se ria l num be r

. Th e four-le ve l en ha nc em en t
ap pli es “ rega

rdle ss of whe ther the de fend an t kne w or ha d rea son to be lie ve tha t the

-5-firea

rm

. . . ha d an al te red or obl ite rat ed se ria l num be r.” U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2K2.1
,
co m m en t. n.8(B ). A s cl early provi de d in the co m m en ta ry , know le dge of the obl ite rat ed se ria l num

be r is not requ ire d. The di st r ic t co urt co rrec tly ap pli ed the four-le ve l en ha nc em en t in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4)(B) in ca lc ula tin g Grim es ’s

se nte nc e.

As U

. S

. S

. G. § 2K2.1 (b)(4)(B) wa s prope rly ap pli ed
, Grim es ’s 92-m ont h

se nte nc e wa s wit

hin an d at the bot tom of the gui de lin e rang e. A ccordi ngl y , we
ap ply a rebu tta

ble pres um

pti on of rea sona

blene ss. See Unit ed Sta te s v. De eg an , 605 F.3d 625, 634 (8th Ci r. 2010 ) (ci ta tio n om itt ed ) (“ W he re, as he r e, a se nte nc e im pose d is wit

hin the ad

vis ory gui de li ne rang e, we ty pic al ly ac co rd it a
pres um pti on of rea sona

ble ne ss.” )

. Ev en so, Grim es argu es tha t his se nte nc e wa s subs ta nti ve ly unre as ona

ble in tha t it was gr ea

te r tha n ne ce ssa ry to co m ply wit h 18
U.S.C

. § 3553 (a). W e dis ag ree

. The dis trict co urt we igh ed the se nte nc ing fac tors

an d impo se d a se nte nc e tha t wa s at the bot tom of the gui de lin e rang e. W e

co nc lud e tha t the dis tric t co urt did not ab use its dis cre tio n an d the refore ne ed not ad dres s the Gove rnm en t’ s al te rnat ive argu m en t oppo sin g Grim es ’s rea sona ble ne ss ch al le nge , i.e . wa ive r.

IV.

For the foreg oin g re as ons, Grim es ’s c onvi ct ion a nd s en te nc e are a ffirm ed

.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __

-6-